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

Unblock request

7Mike5000 (talk) (contributions) was blocked for making this comment about an editor, in this August 2010 AN/I thread, which was construed as a threat:

I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware.

Mike was unnecessarily combative, overly sensitive to actual or perceived insults, impatient, and prone to assume bad faith. He is aware of this behaviour problem and has resolved to change. He has contacted me and asked if I would keep an eye on him, and offer advice and guidance where appropriate. I have agreed to do that for a couple of months six months a year. Mike has created some very worthwhile content and, if he can reign in his impetuosity and adopt a temperate and cooperative approach towards others, will be an asset to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

His request is well spoken and seems sincere. I'd be inclined to give him the chance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd very much stand behind this. Mike is an outstanding contributor, something wikipedia is lacking. Occasional hot-headed moments aside (we're all guilty of becoming impatient at some point or another and losing our cool (and this is an aside from the issue of threatening off-wiki action)), Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken. His edits to various eating disorders have made them into great articles. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but rather preventative, and Mike's apology is an indication of genuine reform in my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a clear threat for off-wiki action, or at least to instigate such action. Yes, there are people who will take the comment literally and actually do it. Apologies that suggest "oh, I'm just a hothead", or "I'm just a whiny bitch" cannot retract the action. Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm if someone actually already has taken the off-wiki action? This is not the type of behaviour that can be readily forgiven - people's livelihoods must be protected. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as Anthony is willing to mentor, and the unblock request shows awareness of what the block was for and commitment to not repeat the behavior, I see no reason not to give Mike another chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• I might be mis remembering things—didn't he actually end up contacting The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan that same month (Aug 2009)? Although we have a policy against legal threats but none against legal action (which really ought to be remedied), I think we can still apply the same principles here—no unblock without a full redaction and withdrawal of case. NW (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, that was a completely different case: this regarded suicide and a particular image said to glamorize it, and your link talks about the Rorschach test. Besides, the date of your link is 8/23, and the date of the diff above is 8/25.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And it was also 2009, not 2010. My bad. NW (Talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely regardless of whether Mike has made a legal case, that is beyond our reach. By announcing you are a doctor on Wikipedia, you very much leave yourself open to criticism on your ability as a medical professional - This is the risk you are taking by using your career as a levy behind the edits you make. A formal complaint to the COP are up to the COP to deal with, not us. We deal with an internet site, they deal with the livelyhood of patients. Threats are prohibited because of their manipulative effect. Contacting a body that manages the medical profession for a perceived threat to the safety of human life is the right of every person. If someone comes here, says "I'm a doctor", and then publishes incorrect medical advice, I would implore users to make that kind of decision; just as we would contact the police if somebody threatened causing harm to others. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you threaten a person's livelihood on Wikipedia, you "severely inhibit free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles and create bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." And that's just from the no legal threats guideline. How much worse is an actual legal action? The policy is clear on that too: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." We don't prohibit anything, but I think it should be made clear that employing both the legal or professional system against another editor for whatever reason and also expecting to stay in good standing on Wikipedia is an insane proposition.

      In any case, Mike has apologized for his statement, so I think NLT is no longer a major issue. Still, this issue impacts more people than you might think, and imagine if you were forced to drop $10,000 or more on legal fees because of something you did on Wikipedia. Even if I were completely innocent, that would be enough for me to never edit Wikipedia again. I think we should take his words more seriously than you seem to be doing. If I said "over the next six months, I am going to be suing you and contacting your state board, and you're going to have to pay $5,000 a month just to appear in court with a halfway decent lawyer," wouldn't you be pissed and expect at the minimum, that the Wikipedia Community™ not treat the two of you exactly the same? NW (Talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Mike, but my impression is he understands the destabilising effect of his comment and regrets having made it. I also get the distinct idea he doesn't share Floydian's languid view with regard to occasional hot-headed moments, but deeply regrets every outburst, and has sincerely resolved to eliminate that behaviour from his repertoire permanently. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We're all human. We all make mistakes. I do not condone those moments, I'm merely stating that we're all subject to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that we are all subject to moments of threatening legal action against people. I'm fairly certain, for example, that I've never done that myself, and I very much consider threatening legal action against subject-matter experts to be inimical to our project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I certainly didn't mean to refer to that. I just meant heated discussions in general. Threats are a very different matter, as they undermine the very basis of our community and everything WikiPedia stands for. That said though, I reiterate that I believe Mike's commitment to reform himself is genuine and that he has enormous benefit to offer the encyclopedia as a contributor here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• The key issue would seem to be that we need to know: (1) did anyone ever actually follow up on that threat? and (2) did the editor himself actually follow up on it? The threat was a severe attempt to intimidate. Is the target of that threat still feeling or being threatened? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the target has given his OK provided it includes some editing restrictions. If the admin is willing to shoulder this problem, then OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• To be candid, I'm not happy about the prospect of unblocking this account. I want to be forgiving, and perhaps Mike could become a consistently useful contributor, but I have very little hope for long-term success and less trust that today's apologetic approach will be present next week, much less next month. I realize that such candid comments must be painful for Mike to read, and I am sorry about that, but this is the direct and unavoidable legacy of his previous choices. I wish my experience had been the same as Floydian's seems to have been. I found that Mike created a high volume of problems, rejected advice, was frequently insulting, and turned simple little things, like 'Please stop WP:COLLAPSEing content, because it harms people who use screen readers', into dramatic discussions. I do not think I could support unblocking this account without a clear topic ban for anything even remotely related to mental health (which is, unfortunately, what he wants to work on), and a specific and not especially sympathetic admin publicly identified as a parole officer to whom any complaints could be directed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • James has suggested a topic ban and Mike has. agreed. I wonder if James would consider being his parole officer. He's not especially sympathetic to Mike but seems to think he deserves another chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: People should be trusted to do what they say they're going to do absent a convincing reason. What he says he is going to do is enough. Most importantly, reblocking him if he stepped out of line would be no big deal. It's far too hard to get unblocked around here. Egg Centric (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• oppose I can see that consensus will go against this !vote, but speaking as a licensed Physician it seems clear to me that this user is not aware of the seriousness of a threat to report allegedly inappropriate behaviour to the Royal College, however unjustifiable such a threat is; as is the case here. I also note a long string of adverse comments made by this editor relating to at least five other editors working in articles on mental health issues. I would only support an unblock in the presence of a topic ban on all mental health articles for at least six months, and longer would be better. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We have no idea how long it will take for Mike to demonstrate an ability to operate collegially here. Nominating an arbitrary length of time for the topic ban is crystal ball gazing. Whatamidoing has suggested his behaviour be monitored by a parole officer. Let's leave it up to that person to decide when lifting the ban is appropriate to propose lifting the ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is the topic ban the right thing, or is it better to insist he never makes threats such as that again? How does a topic ban help? Incidentally, is it possible to say if he ever does make a spurious complaint to the GMC-equivilant he is immediately and irrevocably banned? I think that should be a must. Egg Centric (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Or possibly, seeing as Mike has a lot to offer to these topics in terms of content and research/sourcing, a no-drama talk-page approach? Allow Mike to edit the talk page of these topics, but institute zero tolerance on escalating any contention or issue while he is mentored though the ropes. Six months seems to be what most are suggesting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Mike feels very strongly about psychiatry and mental health issues. The proposition is that the best place for him to learn to collaborate with and trust his fellow editors, and improve his understanding of (particularly sourcing) policy, is on other topics. He knows the consequences of taking off-wiki action against other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Good. Looks like a solution is very close that should satisfy everyone :) Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I how this will work out: "he feels very strongly about X," "he has strong opinions about X," those strong opinions have led him to make serious threats in the past," therefore a mentor will help him avoid those problems. I wouldn't mind an unblock if he agrees to post to Anthonyhcole's talk page every time he posts more than one time to a talk page, and so long that he knows that any hint or threat of real world action will be met by an instant site ban. NW (Talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The crucial points are insight and decision; help and guidance are important but without the former, the exercise is futile. I'm here because I see the former. Even with all these factors in place, there are no certainties but, because they're in place, I think an unblock with the abovementioned restrictions is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Whoah: I just saw what he was complaining about! While the user has of course obtained permission from the patients, and thus these images are ethnically acceptable, it should be incredibly obvious why people could have strong feelings about this. Therefore one should be especially happy to cut the chap some slack. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted! That a user asserts consent doesn't mean they had it. This is not in support of Mike's position, as per my philosophy I am perfectly happy to trust the uploader, but it is in understanding of it - I can see how others would be skeptical. Egg Centric (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no excuse for Mike's behaviour towards editors he's been in conflict with. He needs to make a behaviour change so dramatic that many of the above reasonable people are skeptical it can be done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I want to clarify that my concerns are completely unrelated to the circumstances that (finally) produced Mike's block. Even if he'd never said a word to Doc James, I would still have concerns about his behavior. I suspect, for example, that a person who really had developed insight and discretion, or even a very moderate level of skill at manipulating people, would use less disrespectful language when asking for discretionary favors (e.g., to be unblocked). Mike's unblock request shows skill at self-flagellation and a passable level of giving the "right" answer, but not skill at dealing with people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The only thing that will demonstrate an ability to (radically) change his way of dealing with people is a trial. I've got a life, and I've got goals here. I'm not going to let him waste my time. I certainly don't see my role as making excuses for him. Either he can do it or he can't. We'll know soon enough. As for Machiavellian intelligence, he's working on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't want to be the cause of delaying the outcome of this appeal (whatever that is) but we really need a numbered list of what restrictions are going to be in place (and if we need to make any modifications, this would also be the time). Frankly, in the absence of Anthonyhcole being willing to sort of bend over backwards for him, I'd have opposed downright as there isn't a great deal to consider due to the seriousness of the behavior being reviewed. That is, this is by no means an ordinary violation of policy. That said, Anthonyhcole seems to be willing...so here we are...let's get on with it. Obviously a topic ban would be indef, but as things are never permanent on Wikipedia (in theory), we might need to put a restriction on when he can appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• My default reaction would be that anyone who makes a legal threat as egregious as the one that was made in this case should probably ought not ever be allowed near a "Save page" button again anywhere on this project. Legal threats — especially ones that threaten the livelihood of an editor — are insidious and we are lucky that the one in this case did not end in the permanent loss of at least two editors (the one making the threat and the one on the receiving end of the threat, as well as anyone else editing Wikipedia who could be similarly vulnerable to such threats). If this block is lifted, the one restriction that I think is essential (in addition to any others) is that anything even remotely resembling a legal threat at any point in the future will result in an immediate indefinite block, along with a resulting community discussion on a more permanent ban. jæs (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's perfectly reasonable. Would an admin be prepared to volunteer for the parole officer role? I'll stay in close touch with Mike (as much as being in opposite time zones will allow) and keep the admin informed of his progress (or otherwise). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • So amongst all this discussion where various concerns and proposals have been raised, the final list of things includes a final warning about legal threats (?) and a binding Community topic ban from psych and mental health issues (?)...is that it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think since an editor is willing to keep an eye out for a while that this editor should be given a chance back into the project. It seems this editor, 7Mike5000 understands what the problems were and has acknowledged the problems that we should allow the unblock. If editors prefer a restriction to psych and mental health issues than just do it for say 3 months and then see how things go. Let's please be fair and allow him back to prove he can be the asset that some think he was and can continue to be. I think Anthonyhcole volunteering to watch over is a good plan. I say lets please give this editor an opportunity. It's real easy to reblock if things don't work out, but if they do, we get an editor that helps us build an encyclopedia which is what we are here for. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify a few things. It was another Wiki editor who sent complaints to my college and they had nothing to do with Mike. The college has verified my written consents that I obtain from all patient who images are identifiable and have no concerns. Comment such as this "Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted!" and this "Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken." leave a sour taste in my mouth. That some here do not consider threats a serious issue is a concern.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm not an English Scholar, or maybe I'm from some backwards crazy loopy part of the world (I am from Canada, its possible), or maybe Doctors are just special fuzzy people... But there is no intent of action, or any sort of threat, blackmail, prejudice, etc in the statement that someone (ie, not Mike) should report a person. Thats an opinion and a statement, not a threat. I'm sure we as a community in "consensus" can manipulate it to be whatever we want, but the fact is that a threat is a communicated intent to do harm (physical or otherwise); not a communicated "somebody should report you" (but not me). Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to recall a recent issue where a certain former Vice-Presidential candidate made a comment about a certain Arizona politician being "in the crosshairs", and lo and behold, said politician was shot in the head by someone who failed to notice that the comment was somewhat rhetorical (or at least symbolic). Suggestions of action can lead to literal action. (...and yes, I'm Canadian too) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but should the vice president have been jailed before it happened for threatening to shoot her himself? The restrained person isn't in the wrong, its the person that actually commits to performing the actions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. Bwilkins, with the greatest respect in the world, that is a terrible example. Her quote was victim of the circumstance (and chance), it did not incite the action (at least, there has been no indication that it did so). The takeaway from it is; be careful what you say, because if it chances to come true you could get blamed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not" - this is also a terrible example. The question you have to ask is "was the statement intended as a threat", or was it just impotent handwaving. I mean, if I was to say that 23-year-old college students don't have the emotional maturity to deal with something as serious as this, that's not an insult; it's an observation, an expression of a personal belief. When I was 23 I was full of myself and I look back with embarassment at my youth. Nonetheless you're offended, aren't you? And so it is with I wish you would die or I hope someone reports you or it would be a shame if the red Ford Focus parked on your driveway had its tyres slashed and so forth. In my opinion this Mike character's words were probably closer to impotent handwaving that a call to action - if he had believed what he said, he would have picked up the phone and done something - but it was clearly intended to intimidate his opponent. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Support with qualifications I am okay with Mike being unblocked with the following conditions:

1. Anthonyhcole provides mentoring for a minimum of a year specifically addressing issues of WP:MEDRS if he edits health care pages
2. Mike be restricted from mental health topics broadly construed including talk pages for a minimum of six month to give him time to get a better understanding how the community works.
3. A block will be reapplied if further civility issues were to arise.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Doc James' proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as proposed by Doc James. In case it is unclear to users who comment in this discussion, civility issues include (legal) threats (which is why the latter is not being singled out). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Should these conditions pass with community consensus, they will be listed at WP:RESTRICT. I also note that I specifically agree with Doc James that the topic ban is banning him from MH talk pages as failing to do so is failing to appreciate the inherent concern which gave rise to the MH topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I advocate opening talk pages is because blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has expressed his sincere desire to reform, and he should be allowed to do that in the place where he'll gain experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS. Learn by doing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban extends to talk pages of the mental health topics - the ban is not for all health care topics (and that extension is necessary to prevent the issues that were caused by his involvement there). He continues to have the ability to gain direct experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS because he can edit medical or health care topics with guidance from his mentor (aka he can learn by doing); he just needs to steer clear of the mental health parts of the health care topics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support with allowance for talk pages, so that he can actually participate in the consensus building procedures, and be forced to work alongside other editors, learnign to cooperate rather than acting in his own direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My involvement depends on this temporary topic ban including the talk pages of MH articles. The point is to create a period where we can collaborate with Mike on less emotionally charged topics. This is a well-intended, good idea--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Doc James' proposal, parties agree, everything reasonable - how could I not? :) Egg Centric (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the third condition needs to also explicitly state that anything resembling a legal threat (as reasonably interpreted by any uninvolved administrator) would result in an immediate, indefinite block. I hope he now understands why these sorts of attacks are completely unacceptable, but I think it needs to be entirely clear. jæs (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support this per the proposer Doc James and with the agreement of Anthonyhcole. I also agree that this should be posted WP:RESTRICT. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: does anyone believe I would be horrifically changing things if I change "where" to "were" in restriction 3 ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Definitely a typo that can be fixed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes always feel free to correct my spelling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  I strenuously object! NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Careful, you'll pull a muscle or something :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Doc James' proposal, without modification, looks fine. I think we have general agreement to unblock? NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question. What happens in six months, if Mike has been editing on policy? Does he apply for a lifting of the topic ban here, or does it just expire? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think that it would expire, unless you or another editor raises an objection to it before then. NW (Talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What NW said; if more time is needed under condition 2 or if there are issues that require the conditions to be modified further, then come back here (and notify the users who commented in this discussion). Mentorship would (per condition 1) continue for the 6 months after the topic ban expires (particularly as the topic may be emotionally charged in the transition period). At this point, there are enough comments to show a Community consensus. The reason this is open is for any last minute questions from either you (the mentor) or Mike (the user who would be subject to these conditions) about the practicalities of this. If there aren't any left, this can be closed and logged, while he can be notified of the restrictions and unblocked accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would have been happier if this user had given some indication that he realised the magnitude of a threat on a medical practitioner's livelihood or integrity, but if Doc James is comfortable then I must be. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, we all know that I'm the one who really believes that everyone has something to add to this project. However, for the sole reason that Anthony mentions in his first phrase above, I have to vehemently object to his reinstatement at this time. The original comments need to be struck, and Mike needs to understand that it's a human being at the other end of the IP connection. He needs to realize the potential from every comment is huge. Until he does, we need to protect individual editors and the project as a whole. His comments were as bad as a violation of WP:NLT due to their chilling effect. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In his request, he admitted that his behaviour was "Totally inappropriate and over the top." –xeno^talk 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Mike's talk page

If you're okay with the arrangements at ANI, say the word here and I'll pass it on to ANI for your unblock. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine from what I read:

• 6 mos. prohibition from articles on mental health related topics, even the ones I started like Depression (differential diagnoses) or Cognitive Remediation Therapy and also the talk pages.
• If I make any comment that anyone even perceives to be a legal threat it results in a indef. block or ban.
• I can edit articles on medical topics/conditions sans the aspects that apply to mental health, such aspects to include the cognitive aspects of said topics/conditions. 7mike5000 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian/Viriditas

There is an accusation (that the accuser refuses to back up or act upon) that User:Jack Sebastian has had a previous account with which he has engaged in conflict/tendentious editing [[1]] or is an SPI [[2]]. The user has (reasonably) refused to state the ID of his old account , but has also refused to state that it was never subject to any community sanctions [[3]] claiming that it would be possible to ID his old acount if he did so (or at least that what he appears to say) [[4]]. This refusal does raise concerns that the account whilst it may have been 'in good stead' at the time it was retired may still have had issues relevant to his current activaties (also note the above ANI [[5]]). I wonder if an admin could ask him to just confirm that he has no previous (and to confirm it) and post here that there is nothing to see (and to tell User:Viriditas to drop the matter, indead his actions also need looking into in this respect (given his refusal to act)). Or alternatively to say that there may be issues that needs dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have (in hindsight) decided that the scope of this needs widening. This is not just about Jacks second account. There is a major issue between these two users that is disrupting the project over multiple pages. I think it may be time that both users need to be separated. Neither seems to be able to work with the other in any way (and in both cases it does not appear that this is restricted to each other, both users have major problems with interacting with edds they disagree with).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I am not going to out myself while Slatersteven - who bears me no wikilove - seeks to OUT me by proxy. I have done nothing wrong aside from oppose his viewpoint on a single subject. Indeed, considering Slatersteven's prior contact with me, I would suggest that his view on the matter is substantially skewed. As for the background of Slatersevens' comments, I state unequivocally that I have no interest in editing in the same articles as Viriditas. He jumped in on on a previous AN/I complaint (and one that happened to involve Slatersteven - imagine that) with some spectacularly bad faith accusations/attempt to OUT (1). When I asked Viriditas to elaborate, he shut down and ignored any request for supporting info. He then warned me off his page and his articles, which I did. Less than two days later, Viriditas is all over virtually every article I edit in, dropping personal attacks and driving away at least one user from the Project. Currently, Viriditas' behavior is the subject of a WQA elsewhere; I am attempting to follow Dispute Resolution to the letter. Slaterstevens, (who has a well-documented axe to grind here) has been unable to force me to self-OUT there, now seeks it here, which I find unacceptable behavior. I had suggested there that Slaterstevens drop the matter; we can see how well the user took that request to heart. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if Jack would stop with the uncivil comments and personal attacks and accept consensus on the articles in question, stop editing in a tendentious manner, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Jack has been engaging in this behavior since October 2010 in regards to editors who disagree with his position in the Chaplin "time travel" articles. I only became aware of it recently in January and stepped in to try to help resolve the dispute. As far as I can tell from the consensus on the matter, the dispute is at an end, and I would appreciate it if all involved editors would accept the consensus and move on to bigger and better things. I want to thank Jack for participating in the discussions and look forward to working with him constructively in the future. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You might have considered that before you began your wikistalking of me, Viriditas. Unless further expansion is requested from an uninvolved party, I am keeping further explanations of your behavior within the WQA.

That said, I will say that you have deeply misrepresented your actions here. I have had no interest in editing with you since your oblique accusation of socking three weeks ago in this very noticeboard. I would like you to stay away from the articles I edit in. An easy matter, since you never edited in them before demanding that I stop "hounding" your articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have launched this, to get some outside input into your dispute with this user.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack, Would you be willing to submit the name of your former account to an Arbcom member? That way it is not necessary to spread it all over Wiki but we can verify your previous account was not under sanctions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. I am unsure why I have to surrender my privacy for a fishing expedition. As before stated, Arbs are just admins, and admins are human, prone to making mistakes, like OUTting me offlist and whatever. All I have done is oppose three other editors who seek to reframe a content issue by making it about me. By submitting myself for subjective examination, I am being stripped of my privacy - punitive action for simply disenting - while those casting aspersions and calling for said scrutiny face no negative repercussions when it is verified that my old account was not under sanctions.

I have asked Viriditas elsewhere to submit the name of the admin who apparently seems to think they know who I am, or the Arb he says he is in contact with. Alternatively, they could contact me. He has chosen not to do so. As I lose more than I gain from surrendering my privacy, I am hesitant to do so. The four accusing me lose nothing but an argument of distraction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thats a fair answer. I have to agree casting aspersions is basic WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, violations and if persistent closes into WP:NPA territory. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is evidence of Jack Sebastian being a previously sanctioned user who is violation of WP:CLEANSTART then it needs to be presented or Dropped entirely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. This is not just about Viriditas accusation against Jack Sebastian. Its about both users general attitude. Moreover I do not know what evidance Viriditas may or may not have (one of the oddities wiht this is that if I AGF with Viriditas I have to assume he has good reason to have his doubts, but if I AGF with Jack Sebastian I have to assume he has not). Given teh amoount of spavce that the teo users are taking mup with thier sniping I felt that as neither was willing to act someone else ahould. I agree that (and I have said this) that if Viriditas cannot produce any evidance then he should shut up. I just wonder why the simple question w'as your previous account ever blocked?' would be such a tough answer your Jack to answer. It would make (and would have made AGF on his part easier if he had just said no. How is that asking him to out himslef?Slatersteven (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. After all, Jack is often harping on the block logs of other editors and at the same time, boasting about his 6 years on the project. It would make sense for Jack to contact our trusted arbcom and reveal his previous account and associated logs. Otherwise, it does sound like he's gaming the CLEANSTART policy, and if his previous account was reported on the noticeboards for the same behavior that brought him here again, the community would certainly want to know. I hope Jack will contact the arbs and put an end to this. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Personnel officer: Mr. Sebastapol, you say you have six years' database experience with TechniCorp, correct?

Mr. S. That's right.

P.O. But no one at TechniCorp has ever heard of you.

Mr. S. That's because I worked there under a different name.

P.O. Oh, that explains it. And what name did you use there?

Mr. S. I'm not going to tell you.

P.O. Hmm.

- brought to you by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The best bet at this point would be for Viriditas to take has concerns to his most trusted admin and have the admin check to see whether the previous ID left under a cloud or if it's a non-controversial change of name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was non-controversial; I was not shown the door, so to speak. I've committed no offense except for being stubbornly adherent to policy in a content dispute and (rightfully) intolerant of being stalked and harassed by another user. Are we engaging in witch-hunts based on that now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without giving away the game, can you tell me, in general terms, why you abandoned your old account and created a new one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Boredom, largely. Really, there was no grand secret plot or mad dash for the border. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If there were no issues with your previous account, why the secrecy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, I also abandoned an old account which is not linked to my current account. I will not state the reasons for that other than to say that the old account never in came up on an admin noticeboard, much less had any blocks. Just because there were no issues with the old account doesn't mean you want all of wikipedia, and in extension, the world, to know. If there is no good reason to disclose it, then don't disclose it. _WM^O 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but this user has been accused fo abusing fresh start, and his evasive answers at the time I ask him to deny he has ever been subject to any actions by admins caused concern. I would argue he continues to not deny he was ever subject to admin intervention. Nor has he been asked to provide account details, just to deny the account was ever subject to sanctions (at least by me). But I also note that Viriditas not only does not provide any evidence but also now seems to be using the same kind of weasel words to avoid making black and white statements. I begin to believe that in this case not only are both users not acting in strict good faith but also both are in fact being disingenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Simply put: unless you have evidence the user was previously a blocked/sanctioned account, this is going nowhere. Asking him repeatedly to deny the accusations is McCarthyism. Either present evidence to ArbCom, or drop it until you have evidence JS is a bad-hand account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be okay to discuss the wikistalking and problematic behavior on the part of Viriditas now? WQA suggested that the matter should probably be brought here instead (they only deal with solvable issues between users).

After his comment on this board three weeks ago (the one that initiated all this prior account bs), I asked the user a few times what they were talking about. Viriditas deleted the question, unanswered. Then, in a conversation with another user, he stated (actually tweaking his post to make it more offensive):

"The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely. That's about all I can tell you at the moment. However, many editors know who Jack really is, as his game is very poorly played. It's actually quite sad and pathetic to watch. My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me"

Now, that was a hot mess of personal attacks, but I decided to instead focus on finding out the name of the admin he was referring to. My question was first avoided and then deleted. The next day, he posts an 'official notice', asking me to not stalk, hound or follow his edits around, "trying to annoy him".
Less than 48 hours after this post, he begins showing up at virtually every page I edit in, concentrating on one article in particular, often baiting me with comments about my being a "new editor" - a belief he has admitted here and elsewhere he has never held - and reverting my edits. Granted, this isn't someone screaming that so-and-so is a total pig-f***er, but the wikistalking and the personal attacks are pretty clear. And constant. Wikistalking and personal attacks, with lots of bad faith added. That's got to be some sort of trifecta, right?
I readily admit that many of the content changes Viriditas has added to the aforementioned article have improved it via expansion, but the cost in civility and snarky personal attacks and game-playing seems a bit high of price to pay, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Indeed, one editor (who had created over 100 article), retired his account immediately after a long, drawn-out exchange with Viriditas.
Clearly, I am not neutral in this matter - the guy has worked overtime to poison the well where I am concerned, and I am deeply bothered by the tone of his comments about me that I wonder where its going to stop - when he shows up at my front door with flowers and a knife? Or maybe something less violent-y but ruinous anyway? (not offering up any ideas, as per WP:BEANS)
Even if Viriditas was actually correct in knowing about my previous account, he readily admits that the "conflict" with this other user was over three or four years ago. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work now? Some guy seeks to dismantle a user he has a single article content dispute with by any method at his disposal, and it's tolerated because they are a veteran editor? Man, I hope not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have said (twice) this is not just aboiut your actions. I want the pair of you to bring your complaints about each other here rather then gloging up notice boards and talk pages with your dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, we shouldn't encourage these two to bring any further complaints here either. If I read the situation correctly (I have a pretty clear idea who the previous account is), then these two users just need to step away from each other completely. I suggest a no-interactions rule and blocks if we ever hear either of them making negative remarks about the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems OK. I wanted the dispute to end as its taking up way to much space. Neither user was (or is) willing to resolve or report this So i thought I should. I think a restraining order is the best solution. How will it work?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Slatersteven's position, and I've already responded to Jack's allegations in a previous discussion. He ignored my responses and raised the same claims again, pretending I had not already responded to them. I don't believe I require a "no-interactions rule", and I think I've used the noticeboards and talk pages in the manner they were intended, for the sole purpose of working towards resolution of content issues and improving our articles. Jack, not myself, has continually referred to his previous account[6] before I even made my first comment on the subject.[7] I also believe that by contacting an arbcom clerk, I acted in good faith with the desire that someone other than myself deal with this issue, instead of attempting to "out" Jack on-wiki as Slatersteven demands. Therefore, I do not agree to Future Perfect at Sunrise's "rotten apple" solution, as I believe it attempts to sanction me for following our best practices and procedures. Viriditas (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Viriditas has been acting to uphold policies, and has been met with a barrage of complaints and nonsense from Jack Sebastian, including an overblown WQA case that was just tossed out. I first stumbled upon this situation when I saw the "1928 cell phone user" nonsense posted on the fringe noticeboard at the end of October. Re "cleanstart," I have no idea who this user is but I do know that he has used his mysterious former account to bludgeon others in content disputes. See, e.g., [8] (claiming had been onwiki "years longer than you") and [9] in which he told me "If you'd like to consult with an admin on this matter - as you seem to be unwilling to take the advice of someone with almost 30,000 edits and 6 years of experience - please feel free." I looked at his contribution history and saw someone with less onwiki experience than me, and a clean disciplinary record. If this is a veteran user with a problematic history, it seems to me that editors have a right to know that. He has been warned by an administrator concerning his problematic behavior [10][11] but it didn't take. When a user behaves in a problematic fashion but has used clean start to get a fresh contribution history, it presents a special burden for other users.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would agree to a 'no contact' ruling, even though I did nothing to initiate contact with him for the simple reason that I am very uncomfortable with the apparent level of dedication this user has in trying to hurt me. This matter has all been of his doing, as I did not initiate contact or comment with Viriditas in the first place (he did so, with a well-poisoning hint of outting). After that comment here in the widely-read ANI, I simply posted on his page asking him to detail his accusations; he deleted the conversation, requesting that I not to "hound his edits". Again, I complied. Less than 48 hours later, Viriditas was all over me like white on rice (that is to say, over almost every article I work within regularly), reverting me and making further personal attacks, challenging me on noticeboards, starting subpages about me, etc. It might seem unfair to say, but its all a little creepy..

I could either get chased away from the articles I was working in, or respond to the editor. I restate this background because I feel it necessary to emphasize that I have not sought out contact with the editor. I have done everything Viriditas has asked of me in avoiding him, but he clearly doesn't feel beholden to follow his own request. Without some reason to stay away, I am concerned that his behavior could escalate. If I am as exposed as he seems to think I am, I am very uncomfortable about the idea of Viriditas showing up on my doorstep, or calling my employer or such. Without a clear statement to stay away, I have become convinced that he will not choose to stay away. He might not be this type of person, but why bother taking the chance. Ask him to stay away; I have no plans to contact him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And to respond partially to Scottyberg's post (I consider the former account discussion a nonstarter), the WQA was closed (not "tossed out") because the issues (accusations of SPI, HARASS) were beyonf the capabilities of WQA to resolve. I further note that the closing admin suggested it be initiated elsewhere (read: here). I'll close by pointing out that Scotty isn't really a neutral party in this discussion; he immediately contacted Viriditas to seek out details of my former account to call for my head - all based out of a content discussion. (For all I know, Viriditas could have shared more details of his suspicions via email, which presents it's own set of problematic issues). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The three editors closing out the discussion on WQA all concurred that your complaint had no basis. Also, if you go to the top of the WQA section, it says "No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A fairly bold misrepresentation of the facts, Scotty (and bizarre, considering how easy it is to check). The three edits said no such thing. Additionally, the full text of the closing comments by Eusebeus was as follows:"No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas (talk · contribs); WP:SPI and WP:HOUND issues are beyond the purview of this board and should be taken up at AN/I or other more appropriate fora. If you aren't prepared to offer neutral information, perhaps you should step aside, allowing those who can to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Enough already. See the comments by Eusebeus, Figureofnine and Ncmvocalist, concurring. Eusebeus said "I do not see egregious violations of our civility policies on the part of Viriditas, who, as a seasoned and veteran editor, well-knows the limits of what is permissible engagement." Figureofnine said "I agree in all respects. The complaint has no merit and the allegations need to be pursued elsewhere." Ncmvocalist said "I'd also echo that." Bizarre indeed.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This needs to stop, right here and now. I will block either V. or J.S. if they continue commenting on each other, here or in any other related thread. Moreover, I very strongly recommend both should avoid following the other into further page or dispute they are not already both involved in. I hope they can handle this without the need of a formal community sanction to that effect. If there is any unavoidable open business in any content dispute they are already both involved in, such as that "time traveller" issue, they can finish that off, as long as they both stick very closely to the "comment on content, not contributor" rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the "I hath spoken" choice. Okay. I never started the issue and never wanted the escalation. I don't see myself seeking him out for long walks on the beach. So, does one or the other of us run to you if the other start up? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are being asked to drop the matter now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we figured that one out, John. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:David Tombe is being abused by me

I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail[ed] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Wikipedia) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that this is also being discussed at User talk:Timotheus Canens and User talk:David Tombe. It may be worth keeping an eye on those pages in case things get out of hand. I will be leaving a comment at the former page advising on what should be done here, but as an arbitration enforcement action has been taken, there is no need (yet) to discuss the matter here, so this thread can probably be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, With all due respect, I think we need to distinguish between the concept of 'alternative physics' on the one hand, and the fact that two alternative concepts of centrifugal force were being discussed on the talk page at centrifugal force. Alternative physics was not being discussed. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this [18]. I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, [19]. It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with WP procedures but I was contributing to talk:centrifugal force and the subject "abuse of David Tombe" cropped up. It seems that another editor reported himself for an abuse and it ends with this David Tombe permanently banned from physics articles. Can this be right? I have now checked back and this is about contributions to a talk page. Do you approve of free speech in a talk page? This was all about merging articles on centrifugal force into one, and got mixed up with interpretations. David Tombe's contributions were all "polite" were they not? The only heated comments came from Dicklyon and they were really minor but he admitted he had lost his temper. What is going on? I also checked back about the earlier fracas and it seems to me the ban was then to close down discussion rather than because of a single immoderate or insulting remark. OK there is disagreement here echoing Newton and Leibniz, actually very interesting stuff and as I said in the talk page, we do not understand the cause of inertia so we must be humble rather than fixed in our views of what is a real force. Is gravity a real force? We don't understand that either . I for one feel that we are seeing an injustice here where one editor (dicklyon) gets annoyed and has another banned - indefinitely.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding here is the idea that Wikipedia talk pages are somehow a place to debate what centrifugal force is, or is not (or whatever the topic of the page is). There is often a need for limited discussion of that nature, but it is important to bear in mind the need to keep such discussions limited and to focus discussions onto what edits need to be made to the page and what sources are appropriate. This doesn't mean discussing in depth the science behind what the sources say, but rather the talk page should be for discussing whether and how to present what the sources say. That might seem like the same thing, but there is a subtle and fundamental difference. In other words, Wikipedia article talk pages are not areas of free speech where opinions about the topic should be debated (though that does happen sometimes). This misunderstanding is clearly seen in the comment made by David Tombe here: "the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force". The aim of collaborating on a Wikipedia page on centrifugal force is not to come up with the last word on what is correct and what is not correct. The aim is to document what reliable sources say, and to cover some of the history, and put the rest of the history on the page about the history (see History of centrifugal and centripetal forces), and even there, the aim would be to summarise what historians of science have concluded, not to draw our own conclusions. It is very, very easy to cross the line and end up discussing the content (as you would in a forum), rather than discussing the article and what it should look like. There is even {{Not a forum}} that is put on talk pages explicitly to remind readers to avoid this conduct. For more on the community attitude to Wikipedia being treated as a forum, see the recent Village pump thread here. See also here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bullying

Discussion ongoing about user's conduct (not just on this template, but in general) below.

I'm not sure where to put this, so if this is the wrong sport, please let me know. User PM800 has been removing references to the suicide of Tyler Clementi from this template, with no explanation (see [20][21][22][23][24]). I and another user have been counselling the user on this, asking him for an explanation as to why the content was removed - we received no such explanation. The user refuses to discuss the issue, and comes along every few months and silently makes this subtle change to the article. The change is clearly unwarranted, as a number of reliable sources have labelled the suicide a result of bullying ([25][26][27][28]... need I go on?). I'm not sure what kind of action to take here - I have reverted this user a number of times, and I and another user have left a few talk page messages, with no response. Despite a number of reliable sources stating otherwise, this user continues to make this subtle change every now and then. While usually this sort of thing could be sorted with discussion and consensus building, this user has ignored (literally, ignored - no comments were left on his talk page after a notice was left there a while back) attempts to do so. OK, so now for some diffs of PM800 ignoring the request for discussion... PM800 was repeatedly requested to explain his actions: here, here, here, here and here. PM800 ignored each and every request. Arctic Night 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I trust that they will provide a rationale here, otherwise I am inclined to indef block until one is provided - or an undertaking given not to edit war on the matter. This appears to be an otherwise responsible editor, and I would rather not resort to sanctions to bring this to a conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I believe a rationale was provided (specifically, in an edit summary, "not bullying"). However, upon being provided with countless sources refuting this, the user refused to discuss the issue further (specifically, by ignoring me and the other user). User contribs show that the user has been active since notification of this ANI thread was posted on his talk page - not just small edits, but the full creation of pages. I fear that this user is ignoring me again, although I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions! Arctic Night 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Although I can't quite put into words why, I have to say that I'm not convinced that categorization the cause of suicides in this way is a good idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Categorization of living persons is arguable enough - this sort of template gives me substantial unease - one ought not rely on "he's dead, Jim" as an excuse for lumping anyone into a category. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC) OK, I would be perfectly happy to discuss that if you would like to - however, this user is removing one suicide from a list of several suicides. Just to make it clear - the Tyler Clementi suicide was not the only one on the list, there were several suicides on there, but this user chose to remove this particular suicide from the list. Besides, we're not talking about categorisation here... we're talking about a template. However, the issue here is this user's repeated removal of one suicide from a list of suicides with no explanation. Arctic Night 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC) The user's still editing and still continues to ignore my questions. Arctic Night 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Lack of effective communication is one reason why Wikipedia is failing. If an editor declines to discuss a topic with his or her peers, there is no point to this being a collaborative project. I don't care about the template, but I do care about communication, especially as I've experienced time over time again that nothing productive comes out of not talking. I'm tempted to fully protect the template, but I'm not sure that would solve the underlying issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Well, there is plenty of time to see if they are moved to respond. If this section archives without a response from PM800 or a resolution otherwise, ping me on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Fetchcomms, you're absolutely right - if an editor just ignores repeated requests to start discussing an issue, that's not only rude but also detrimental to the project as a whole. I'm not sure if it would be such a good idea to wait until this section archives - PM800 is clearly still active and continues to ignore this ANI notice. Arctic Night 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I've warned them on their talk page. If they revert again with no discussion, I will block them. Let me know if they do. Fences&Windows 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that, however it seems that PM800 just waits for a month or so and removes the content. I'm not entirely sure what we could do to get this to stop other than warn - another admin offered to indef-block until the user provides a rationale for their actions. So far, PM800 has completely ignored this ANI thread also - his user contribs show him clearly still editing despite this ANI thread progressing. Arctic Night 01:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC) OK, so now for some diffs... PM800 was repeatedly requested to explain his actions: here, here, here, here and here. PM800 ignored each and every request. Arctic Night 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I also noticed this, this and this - maybe it's time for a Wikiquette alert. Arctic Night 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Note: there is also now a discussion at WP:AN3 ongoing about this user's conduct. Arctic Night 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ms. Black Gold on Stereotypes of white people

The user has been blocked twice[29] for edit warring over this material.[30] Both before and after I reported it to the RS/N.[31]

MBG has once again returned to re-add the material[32]. MBG has once again reverted a user who removed it.[33].

I long ago gave reasons for why I removed the material. Here is a summary of the objections I had made up to when MBG was blocked for the first time. A dozen or so other editors criticised the material or removed it, but she reverted or ignored them all.

If Wikipedia means anything, this editor either needs to be warned off or blocked yet again. BillMasen (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit extreme to say that "if Wikipedia means anything," action needs to be brought against an editor who hasn't been here since before last Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the clear consensus, in every case, was against this material. Surely re-adding it isn't acceptable? Or is someone going to have to sit on the page and clean it up every week or so?

If you think you can reason with the editor concerned (after looking at these edits) that would be great. I presume you agree that MBG's contributions on this page aren't acceptable? BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the editor in question hasn't edited ANY page since 23 December 2010...GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So when I revert back to the consensus version, and she undoes the edit, will it be a problem then? Hey ho... BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If that happens, then maybe there's an issue. At the moment, it isn't an issue, since they aren't reverting - or, indeed, making any edits at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep - revert back, and if/when she reappears and becomes disruptive, then it's a time to get admins involved - but presently there is no issue to be resolved. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the account. Respectfully, I disagree with a wait and see approach in this situation given the history of the user. The contributor was blocked on July 7 for edit warring on the same article. The first and only edits she made after return were to resume edit warring, whereupon she was blocked again with a caution that further such activities would result in further sanctions. Her first and only edits after return from that block (albeit delayed by some months) were to immediately resume edit warring, including reverting the contributor who reverted her. If blocks were punative, there'd be no point in blocking months after the fact. But they're preventative, and there is every reason to believe that this contributor intends to ignore consensus and continue pushing her point of view at her leisure. An indef-block, of course, can be overturned by any plausible indication that she understands that this is unacceptable behavior and will stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrible block. Nothing in contributions that would support an indef block. Support unblock. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly edit warring to restore the same material that got her blocked twice, somehow that doesn't support an indef block? Do remember indef is not forever, just until they agree to stop the edit warring. Support the block. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia over the last six months have been to continue the same old edit war. Two previous blocks of escalating duration failed to drive home the point that this conduct is inappropriate. An unblock can be considered if this editor demonstrates an interest in contributing constructively to Wikipedia and a commitment to avoid the edit warring in the fugure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Best block ever made. Clearly preventing disruption, indefinite is not infinite, if they wish to be unblocked and be allowed to edit they can engage in discussion on their talk page and give an account of their actions. --Jayron32 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

To those who think there is no problem here; the user never would have been blocked at all if an admin had stepped in and warned MBG earlier on about POV-pushing (note the first two times she was blocked, I didn't even ask for a block). BillMasen (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance at WT:NFC please

There is an ongoing RfC discussion at WT:NFC regarding the use of character images. Yesterday, I began a subdiscussion in the RfC. My efforts, while admittedly containing sarcasm, were in good faith and were an honest attempt to generate discussion in another way. Yesterday, User:Jheald attempted to close the discussion before it even got started [34]. I re-opened the discussion [35], and some interesting discussion with other editors has since developed. Today, User:Jheald has accused me of trolling 4 times (and later a 5th time) ([36][37][38][39]) and twice called my efforts a waste of everyone's time ([40][41]). When I attempted to split off the accusations he made of me trolling into a separate discussion area [42], he agreed with the subsequent closure of the discussion [43], and then reposted in the primary discussion area calling the splitting off of the discussion "artificially separated and boxed off" [44] and effectively restated his opinion from the accusations of trolling section that this was all a waste of time. Two other editors contributed meta discussion to the primary discussion section, and I attempted to segment that discussion into a section titled "Meta discussion about the nature of the conversation", so as to permit the two separate discussions from interfering with one another [45]. I was reverted [46] and referred to as "page format trolling" (edit summary). I am attempting to have a productive conversation, a conversation others were contributing to, and am finding it impossible to do so because of Jheald's actions. I have asked one of the participants to hopefully overlook this fraying of the discussion and focus on the posts I made that I would like to see his response to [47].

I believe Jheald is attempting to disrupt this conversation and has been conducting a day long attempt to derail it.

I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and allow the refactoring of the discussion similar to the attempt I made [48] to separate the discussion and the meta discussion of the nature of the discussion, with perhaps a word of caution to Jheald to cease his continued accusations of trolling. Editor has been notified [49] of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burden AN/I with this, which seems pretty trivial.

Hammersoft put up a proposal he didn't believe in, which suggested repudiating the Foundation's resolution on non-free content -- which clearly wasn't going to happen. That's not productive; in my view it can reasonably be construed as trolling, so I thought it was useful to make him aware of that. This seemed to trigger ever more attention-seeking behaviour from him, demanding I start a thread about him here at AN/I. Yes, perhaps it was a bit short of me to respond to that with "DNFTT", but that short blunt refusal to engage further can sometimes be a useful response to someone seeking drama. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• And on you go with your unfounded accusations of me being a troll and "seeking drama". Even if I don't personally believe in a proposal, I can still lay it out for discussion and see where it goes. Other editors found it useful. It has produced productive discussion. Your incessant attempts to interlace your accusations against my character, despite my attempts at appropriately separating the discussion is disruptive. We can't get anywhere in the discussion if you persist in attempting to close the discussion, incessantly accusing me of being a troll (six times now), and reverting my attempts to not disrupt the conversation. Look, I get it...I truly do...that you think I'm a troll. I'm not some gibbering fool that has to be told six times by you before it suddenly dawns on me that you think I'm a troll. That doesn't give you leave to do everything in your power to disrupt the conversation that is progressing. Would you please allow the meta discussion to be separated out so that the people contributing to the on topic discussion can continue with it? PLEASE? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• My response of 14:33, reinstated/summarised at 15:47 was made in direct response to Hammersoft's comment of 14:08. My response was emphasising that the relevant place to draw a line was not one "permissible within the limits of U.S. Fair Use law", as his previous comment had had it, but had to be one which recognised "that NFC content has to comply readily not just with U.S. Fair Use law for us, but also for our verbatim commercial downstream reusers; and that NFC is not going to be allowed, if it discourages substitute free images from being uploaded". In my view that is a directly relevant follow-on comment on what Hammersoft had just said, and I do not understand why he is so determined to have this response moved away from his comment. I object to the two comments being separated because it was a direct (and I thought significant) comment on what went before. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft has long been a WP:FANATIC when it comes to NFC discussions, and that sub-section was one giant exercise in POINT making trollery, long before he started sub-sectioning it for 'meta' discussion. NFC is probably the top priority area at the moment for oversight from non-involved admins who are simply concerned with respect for the TPG and nothing more. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I thread does not need to become a recapitulation of insults and accusations which caused the thread to come to be in the first place. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand, a great big....nothing. Lesson learned; it's ok to repeatedly attack an editor as a troll, and intentionally disrupt a conversation so much that one of the principal people in the conversation can't find where to continue the discussion on the page. I appreciate the education, and I'll try to apply this lesson moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this section as unresovled. Having not got his way, Hammersoft closed it himself in yet another episode of POINTY childish foot stamping [50]. Rather than letting yet another one of these examples of his completely unnacceptable behaviour slide into the archive, can an admin please give him the third party feedback he clearly wants. Alternatively, Hammersoft, why don't you file an arbitration request citing every admin who didn't act on your complaints that you are wrongly being called a disruptive troll. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your compliments. Most helpful. There is nothing further to do with this thread/request. The conversation I was hoping to salvage on WT:NFC has been destroyed and is now continuing elsewhere. No further action is needed. Therefore, resolved. If you have issue with it being resolved, please by all means feel free to start a thread about my childish foot stamping. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to open a separate section for that, it can be dealt with here, you do not get to set the agenda just because you started the section. As with all ANI reports, the behaviour of the filer is under examination just as much as any accused party. That's perfectly normal ANI protocol, no amount of continued back handed commentary from you on what has and has not happened here, changes that. If you really believed that conversation had been 'destroyed', then you would not in all seriousness be insisting on closing this thread now would you? I say you aren't interested at all, that you are a disruptive editor yourself, that this complaint was entirely bogus, and if anything, it's you who was making a POINT on that Rfc, and it is you who is in need of admin feedback on how to be a productive and collaborative member of this community. And I really wouldn't mind seeing an uninvolved admin's opinion on that assessment. If they really decide your actions aren't worth bothering about, then they can close it themselves with that conclusion, and that can go on record for future reference, just as you have presumably put into your record that no admin took any notice of your complaints that you were wrongly being labled as a troll. Until then, this thread remains open. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning that my behavior can't be analyzed as a result of my bringing a concern to AN/I. I have attempted to close this discussion, despite your revert warring, because the situation truly is resolved. The discussion is evolving elsewhere at User_talk:JDDJS#Your_position, and there is no need for an administrator to step in and split the threads as I hoped to see happen. I understand you feel I am a disruptive editor. I understand you feel I have made a number of WP:POINT violations. I understand you think i am engaging in "childish foot stamping". Again, I thank you for your compliments. Your position has been clearly stated. I'm sure another administrator will agree with your summary and take appropriate action against me. Regardless, the reason this thread was brought in the first place has been resolved. If an administrator wants to take action against me, they are quite welcome to do so and my marking this thread as resolved has no effect on this.
• Nevertheless, I am not going to re-close this thread. It has turned into a welcome vehicle by which you can air out your complaints against me. Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've no real need to thank you for not edit warring on the ANI page in an attempt to prevent examination of your behaviour, have I? This is not a requests board, it's an incident board. You might not have got your desired outcome, but the issues of your behaviour in that Rfc are still live, and evidently unchanged. If your disruption has caused the RFC to fragment onto personal talk pages, that's also a live issue that would benefit from outside intervention, for the good of the project. I've no real need to expand on the sort of trollery you engage in, you make it self-evident most of the time. In terms of less visible disruption, I've just had to remove your innappropriate and un-noted insertion of a section break above my comment of 18:31. That was a very basic violation of the TPG right there, which is again all part of the live issue, as you will presumbly keep doing this without correction. I seek no stage here, I am of course not complimenting you, and I of course believe you are what I say you are and you do what I say you do. You've provided half the diffs on that score already. That you 'understand' these objections is neither here nor there, it's just more pointless sarcastic noise, because you can't/won't do anything about it. I don't have an esteemed opinion, just an opinion, which I will express here, unless or until it's brought to a close in the way I suggested. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You've made accusations that I have been disruptive. Excellent! Would you please provide evidence that I have been disruptive? You've made accusations that I have engaged in "trollery". Fantastic! Would you please provide evidence that I have done so? If you wish to see my behavior change, providing evidence of that behavior so an uninvolved admin can analyze said behavior would be most helpful. I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so. I understand you feel my creating a section header to discuss me was inappropriate. I felt it was appropriate, given that it was a separate discussion. I thought I was doing you a favor by giving you an open stage on which to produce your complaints against me. I'm sorry it was poorly received. As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. As to my expressing that I understand what you are saying, I am at a loss as to how you can construe that as sarcastic. I am confirming that I recognize you have that position. How is that sarcastic? Lastly, I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing. Do you have such a suggestion? Would it be helpful to you if I started an RfC about me and my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You didn't realise that going against the TPG to improperly refactor someone else's comments would be poorly recieved? How long have you been here? The evidence of your disruption is that sort of refactoring and that sort of implausible response/explanation, and all the previous examples in that RFC. And you wanted to do me a favour by doing that yes? To allow me a space to air my 'personal attacks' on you? Sure. The accusation that you are a sarcastic troll still stands, and the evidence for that is that post, and all other similar back handed statements before it. Maybe you see it, maybe you don't, but I'm not here to act as your self-awareness coach tbh, you'll get one straight observation from me, and that's your lot. As for this whole paragraph - As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. - that is just incomprehensible to me tbh. What is it even supposed to mean? Firstly, what personal attacks? Second, I am supposed to decide if my intention was to offend you? Eh? What? It's hard to see that as not just more pointless noise - filling up sections with that sort of incomprehensible input is also a form of disruption. What would be helpful to me and everyone else is if you kept your input here simple and straight, without any inference or assumption, or if that's not possible, just stopped talking. Otherwise, making statements like " I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing" - when what you actually said was Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary just further illuminates the problem, piling example onto example. Whether or not I file an Rfc depends on what observers have to say about what I've said. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting administrator input here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned User:Moulton being disruptive, continuing to out editors

User:Moulton who was banned for persistent disruption, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [51] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Coonsidering that multiple admins just removed those difs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anywas, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked user:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [52] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

Resolved

 – An editor has made a good faith AfD nomination. The process is in place. No sense in adding pointless grief!

This user is constantly nominating the articles about different programming languages for deletion without proper research of the actual programming languages' notability. Taking into account the number of articles that he has tagged for deletion, I highly doubt his good faith. We are talking about such languages as Nemerle, Alice ML, etc. We've tried to provide the notability of these languages (for example, there are plenty of academic papers and publications about Alice ML, there are official published research papers about Nemerle, published through Microsoft Research, there are many articles about Nemerle in RSDN Magazine, official Russian science magazine, ISSN 0234-6621, included in the Russian Science Citation Index). However, he disregards all these source as either non-reliable or not notable enough. I don't really see how Microsoft Research or official science papers may be non-reliable. It seems that Christopher has some personal interest or offence for doing that. He has also stated that "his mission" is to remove "redundant" programming languages from Wikipedia, which I am afraid may result in deletion of interesting and valuable articles.

I urge moderators to look closer at this user, his actions, and his actual motivation.

Don Reba (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then the AFD discussions will bear that out. There is no need to think he is acting in bad faith, or needs to be stopped from starting AFD discussions. Indeed, by letting the discussions run to the end, and letting him start them, it actually works to disprove his thesis, which will only make it clear that the articles (if they are about notable subjects) aren't going anywhere. I don't really think your description of events describes any actions that require sanctioning at this point. Trust the Wikipedia community on this one. --Jayron32 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't the time to explain myself in detail for the n-th time. I believe my reasoning to be clear on the AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemerle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (programming language), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bsisith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido (programming language). Not a single specific source has been given for any of these articles that I or others haven't given (what I believe to be) a specific reason for not establishing notability.

I can't verify the RSDN sources, but two other commentators on the AfD with more familiarity with the reputation of the source 1) have said that this is not a sufficient amount of coverage establish notability and 2) the articles were written by the key developer of Nemerle, and therefore they do not count as independent, third-party coverage.

Furthermore, I have acted in good faith in every single edit I have made, and I have assumed good faith of all other editors involved until recently. Note the first comment on my talk page -- I didn't know whether this project was notable or not, so I added a notability tag, which resulted in sources being added to the article. At this point I conceded that the project met the notability guidelines. The exchange was civil and rational between both parties.

From here on out, I will not be replying to complaints by non-administrators. I've already been accused of COI, which an administrator cleared my name of. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris, you are so concerned about your name, but you are quick to harm somebody else’s reputation. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic; NoAccountNameAvailable, why does your name sound so familiar? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I mistook you for User:TheLastusernameLeft. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher, others can verify RSDN. For example myself. I could say, it is reliable source (I'm not a developer of the language). It is logical to write articles about the language by people who are familiar with the subject. However the articles about Nemerle on RSDN are not from the author of this language. I also do not like that you change facts, for example: you said "2 articles on Stackoverflow about Nemerle" instead of more than 100. I hope it was just a mistake but it gives wrong impression about notability of the language.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm marking this as resolved. The article is going through the AfD process and there is no evidence that the nomination was not made in good faith. Given the flak that the nominating editor has received (the AfD page makes interesting reading), I suggest that we let the process play itself out and give everyone the chance to work on neglected sections of wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Egypt Pages Needed

Reports are coming out that "Egypt's president Mubarak will transfer powers to vice president", according to al Arabiya. With that, all Egypt pages should be watched if not semi-protected pre-emptively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just listened to the speech live, and it looks like he'll be staying on until September, according to Twitter and what he was saying. Looks like there's no issue. Arctic Night 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went with what I had heard. Bad information on my fault. The people in Tahrir Square are NOT happy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They are now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

Sorry to bring this up yet again but there seems to be a bit of edit warring going on on this page (it's under a 1RR restriction)and my request for page protection has now languishged for over 8 hours at WP:RFPP despite every other request having been dealt with. Could someone else also take an attempt at educating User:Eliko on what this merge decision at WP:TfD actually means. They seem to be taking it that it means the template has to be merged and don't seem to understand that what should be merged is it at editorial discretion and that if there's disagreement this should be discussed on the talk page and it can't be forced thorugh because of the "resolution" (their words) at TfD. Additionally, given that the closing admin only changed their original delete decision to merge at the request of this user it's clear to me that they weren't commenting at all on what should be merged. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Waiting until 4 minutes past 1RR to revert is not a defense against edit warring, IMHO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko's response:

The sequence of events was as follows:

• On 17 December 2010, it was decided (per this resolution) to merge a template into the article.

• On 9 February 2011, it was decided (per this resolution) to delete the template, which was userified to Eliko's userspace by Dougweller.

• On that very day, few hours after the template was deleted and userified, User:Eliko merged it (i.e. parts of it) to the article.

Now please pay attention to the following 5 points (please don't skip any - if you really want to know what's going on here):

1. Notice that the first resolution to merge - has never been canceled.

2. Notice that any legal attempt (not violating any Wikipedia rules) to comply with the first resolution to merge - should not be regarded as an attempt to "force" anything (as you called that), but rather as a definitely legitimate attempt to comply with that resolution - i.e. to contribute to Wikipedia; just like the other legal edits in other articles on Wikipedia, which should not be regarded as attempts to "force" anything, but rather as definitely legitimate attempts to contribute to Wikipedia.

3. Notice also that the merge carried out by User:Eliko on 9 of February (at 20:26) and by User:Alinor on 10 of February (at 13:05) - was the only merge that has ever been carried out - since the first resolution to merge was made, so your edit summary here - which was made on 9 of February (at 14:49) before User:Eliko's merge - includes a wrong claim.

4. Notice also that the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February - is rejected by a single user only, and is supported by two users, i.e. User:Eliko and User:Alinor.

5. Notice also that no Wikipedia rules (nor Wikipedia policy) were violated by the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February; On the contrary: this merge complied with the first resolution (that has never been canceled) to merge (parts of the template to the article).

Hope this helps to figure out what's going on here.

Eliko (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get technical (and I'm only doing this to humour you), the version that ruled to "merge" was vastly different from the version that you did merge, since you "updated" the template during its second deletion nomination. So your "merge decision" doesn't apply here, does it, since that's not what you've done? Any "merge" should be proposed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus should be reached. That is proper editing policy. There's now a discussion at WP:AE about me, with which you might be interested. Nightw 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You know the truth. You know that what you call: my having "updated" (the template) - is nothing more than copying from the very article into which the template should be merged. Regarding the "discussion" on the talk page: the addition that was merged - has already been discussed on some talk pages, including the talk page of the template, and including the page of this discussion, which resulted in the resolution to have a "merge" - while you were the editor who rejected the suggestion of "merge". As for the "consensus" you're talking about: it does not mean 100% of the editors: Even when most of the editors are in favour of something - against a single editor, it's still a "consensus". Eliko (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior by User: Mad Doggin 7 / 65.254.165.214

The user Mad Doggin 7 (also posts under the IP address 65.254.165.214, which is clearly the same person) has repeatedly disrupted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters. Over several months he has unilaterally reverted several community members' edits countless times to place his unsourced, extremely poor quality information (his story has also changed to very different but equally poor information despite him claiming the same source). This information is in direct contradiction to community concensus and provided official sources. When asked to provide links or verification regarding his sources or evidence, he has repeatedly explicitly refused to do so, stating that he is above the need to provide verification.

Not only this, but he has repeatedly threatened other users on the article's Talk Page who disagree with him with bans/blocks that he has no authority over. He has even explicitly lied about the administrator privileges of another user in an attempt to intimidate other users. This is explicitly prohibited as noted under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

I laid out a well formulated argument on the talk page (which he frequents): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters, in which I cited and provided links to many official sources (including the media's creator which he supposedly cites) and addressed his claims. I also warned him of his disruptive behavior and Wikipedia policy violations, with direct links to the policy pages. He has chosen to ignore this, and instead continued his reverts under his alternate IP address/account 65.254.165.214 (a quick look at the address' history reveals that this is obviously the same person) without bothering to respond or provide any sources as he has consistently done so in the past.

I recommend immediate action be taken to prevent further disruption by this user. As demonstrated over the last several months, he has no intention of stopping or providing any evidence, despite being warned to do so. Investigation into the IP address reveals a history of disrupting other articles as well. CannikinX (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Competence is required...

I'd like to recommend User:PM800 for a gross incompetence block, or at least a very stern warning about one. This user ignores any request to start a discussion... on anything. There's already a discussion on here about his continued removal of content without explanation... any other user caught doing this would be blocked on sight. Examples of this user's gross incompetence (a blockable offence):

• This user refuses to engage in discussion about anything, and instead just keeps reverting and doing what he wants to do. For example, on She (Green Day song), this user reverted other editors (with NO explanation at all!) not once, not twice, but FIFTEEN times. These same shenanigans have been going on at Longview (song), Dookie and Shenanigans (album). Have you any idea how frustrating it is to try and resolve a dispute when one of the parties just IGNORES you when you try to approach them repeatedly?
• This user is just plain rude. "Nice try, asshole"., "That 'correction' didn't make any sense, you moron.", "You spelled "inappropriate" wrong, n00b." (this one was coupled with the reversion of a vandalism reversion of something to do with anal sex).
• This user repeatedly inserts factual inaccuracies into articles, and completely ignores requests to stop it or warnings that what he's doing is not OK.
• This user acts in a manner completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, leaving the following comment on an IP user's page: "Your mom did Abraham Lincoln."
• This user thinks it's perfectly acceptable to return every once in a while to an article to make unexplained content removals. When approached ([53]), this user ignores the offer for discussion and continues to carry on with the same behaviour.
• To tie all of this up into a nice conclusion, PM800 has put off a number of IP users from editing Wikipedia through his reversion of their valid edits and personally attacked others countless times. Interacting with this user is a painful process, as you can't interact with him at all... He knows how to 'flout the system' - by ignoring all warnings, he can never be held accountable for his actions.

This user is full of personal attacks, unexplained reversions and plain rudeness. What irks me most about this user is his ignoring of all approaches for discussion. It's gotten to the point where this user can just do what he likes, because when he is approached for discussion about his actions, he just ignores the request. Of course, once it's apparent he won't respond, he is reported to an administrator, by which time it's too late to block anyway.

There is precedent for 'gross incompetence' blocks for those who cannot comprehend (or choose to blatantly ignore) our policies and guidelines.

You might say, 'warn and move on', but it's not like that. He has had several warnings in the past, all of which he just completely ignored (literally - no response) and continued with his same old behaviour. I'm at my wit's end as to what to do - warnings just don't work. Arctic Night 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down. This is already being discussed above. The user was notified of the ANI discussion above, was issued a final warning, and most importantly has not yet returned to problematic behavior. He was editing within the past hour, and has not done anything wrong in those edits. As has been noted above, when he starts up again, he can be blocked. But there is no impending need to block right now. I have no idea why you are starting multiple threads on the same issue across multiple discussion boards, or even worse, starting multiple threads at the same discussion board. Please take it easy. --Jayron32 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• We're not already discussing this above - the thread above was about Template:Bullying, whilst this thread is about this user's conduct in general (although I've consolidated the two now). He's had more than enough warnings and last chances ('next time, you'll be blocked!') - I honestly can't see why he should be given another one. He just ignores them. Arctic Night 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• His last edits in the past hour are all quality edits, and none of them is problematic. If you really want to have this discussion, try WP:RFC/U instead of here. If he starts edit warring again, I will be first in line to block him. Please trust admins to do their job. --Jayron32 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Quality edits" - right. This user mixes in a bunch of rude and smarmy comments with a bunch of productive edits, and needs to stop it. An RFC/U won't work - PM800 usually bullies IP users, who are hardly likely to return to certify an RFC/U. That's the point about this editor - he's productive in the article space, but rather rude outside of it. The point is, somebody clearly hasn't been doing their job if he's been edit warring fifteen times in a row without somebody picking him up on it (actually, somebody did, but he just ignored the warning). Arctic Night 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let me say this again. When he commits another violation, I will block him. As long as one of the other admins above, who also said that exact same thing, don't block him first. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• This edit was made after the 'final warning'. Arctic Night 03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• If I had seen that edit, I'd have reverted it. I don't see that one as a violation. --Jayron32 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you would similarly be guilty of removing content. Look at the article now... Arctic Night 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I never implied that my revert wouldn't have been a mistake, but I think you could have called it an honest mistake given the lack of reference and lack of edit summary. When numbers from articles are randomly changed, without source, its generally a bad idea to let it slide. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since a block by me was cited as a precedent for this I suppose it is appropriate that I respond. With that user, and others like them, lesser measures were attempted such as removing any advanced user rights and blacklisting them from automated tools they were misusing. It didn't work, but it is something to consider in competence cases. Of course, most of the competence based blocks I have placed were on users who were perpetually clueless but not extremely rude as this user has been, and they were willing to engage in discussion with users who pointed out their various errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Three comments. This PM800 needs a harsh lesson in civility, and it looks like he will get it if this happens again. Secondly; you shouldn't be labelling his edits as vandalism, even if you are getting stressed by them, WP:VANDALISM. And a third comment on the factual inaccuracies; removing religion from the Portman infobox was correct per WP:BLPCAT, he just did not cite that policy in the edit summary (which should be encouraged). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this user SHOULD be blocked, judging from the information above; however, I wouldn't recommend an indefblock just yet. Maybe a week? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, since he/she has been constructive since the Final Warning, maybe he/she shouldn't be blocked. But if he/she starts up again, yeah, 48 hours to a week. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help request

I have been watchlisting several Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian TV and radio articles as they have been targets for an individual, or individuals, that are intent on formats contrary to the MOS. Most recent in a long list of IPs is 125.162.18.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this elaboration of a redirect (that has stood since 2008) into content whose sources are to a suspended internet account, and this version of an article with heavily linked dates and interlinks that are quite redundant. Posting to the IP's talk has resulted in the usual silence that I have come to expect when attempting to communicate with the 125.162 range. I have previously requested advice from the folks that monitor the MOS talks and the general consensus is that reversion of these edits should continue. That aspect of my actions tonight is also on the table if anyone has an opinion. Thanks Tiderolls 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify; my posts to the MOS talks were some weeks ago. The actions I refererenced above were the format reversions in general. Sorry, it's late here and it's been a long day. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these seem to be the types of edits where there are no problems reverting as they don't add any useful content. I've just reverted the last changes to Channel 9 (Malaysia) and TV9 (Malaysia) by this editor and semi-protected the pages for 72 hours to stop them edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what are the other IP addresses (and articles) in question here? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I worked on this list for an hour and barely scratched the surface, Nick. I have saved the info I've gathered so far and will post it after work. Tiderolls 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

[54], Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. _WM^O 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per policy - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? _WM^O 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I neither know nor care what Salegi's sexual preferences are. I could not possibly have outed him. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Oversight deleted the difference, right? That's just blatant lying right there. _WM^O 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "outing" have something to do with a person's sexual orientation? --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but it has something to do with a WP:COMPETENCE block I can see in your very near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more a "being deliberately obtuse" block. --B (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy, I don't understand why no administrator is doing anything about it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, I would like to apologize to you for the names I called you. I am sorry I did. It was not appropriate. (A lot of useless friction might have been avoided had I googled your old username sooner, instead of last night). Regarding my note to Moonriddengirl, I was only trying to explain my behavior in suddenly walking away from further interaction with you. Your age, as indicated on your own outside websites, was the determining factor in my decision. "Outing you" in any sense was the last thing on my mind and not my intention. I also apologize to you for embarassing you in that regard. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues [55] Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that this article be reinstated. I looked at the history of this article and the same user by the naame of user:Daedalus969 within the span of a few months tried to speedy delete the article once and full delete it three times. He failed every time except on the third time...supposedly. Upon further review the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it but a couple of editors against a strong consensus to keep the article decided to redirect the article. I think the article should be reinstated on account of abuse of process by the repeated delete attempts by the one editor and the rogue redirect by the administrator. Tear it up and kill it (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You should take it to a deletion review if you wish to contest the AfD result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The redirect decision was made by community consensus at AFD; if you think the wrong closing decision was made then the proper forum is deletion review, this board is for actions needing immediate admin attention :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack, quack. The poster of this complaint is a rather easily recognisable sock of a user who originally wrote that article and has been trying to restore it through several socks for a long time. See Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

... and I have modified the edit protection for the redirect to admin-only - it previously was move-protected only. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at [[56]] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at [[57]]), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at [[58]] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at [[59]]

I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at [[60]]. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at [[61]] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at [[62]]. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at [[63]] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at [[64]] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at [[65]]).

The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel#Top_Ryde_Shopping_Centre_not_largest_shopping_centre_nor_largest_development.

User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:

• [[66]]
• [[67]]
• [[68]]
• [[69]]

I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page.

I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.</jovial> I'm notifying all users mentioned above. -danjel (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant claim that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).[70][71][72]

After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,[73], which he immediately deleted.[74] He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page[75] (I had reverted his edit twice[76][77]; I had also made this earlier edit—not a revert—in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit.) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns[78] (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.[79][80]

I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR,[81] rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page[82] in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page,[83][84] which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO.[85][86] I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.[87][88]

After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements[89][90][91] and removed his personal attack about me from his User page.[92][93][94] User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal"[95] and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region".[96] However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".[97]

When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee.[98] User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks[99] and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him.[100] See Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rcsprinter123

Many of Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s edits are related to list of bus routes in Derbyshire. On 29 December he created (at the time it was in article space) "important bus routes in Derbyshire"; it was taken to AfD the same day, and withdrawn after seven and a half hours because the article had been moved into user space. During the AfD, Rcsprinter followed the nominator, Aiken drum (talk · contribs), around and disruptively added tags to articles AD had created: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

Two days later, the article was recreated and demanded full protection to make sure no one deleted it. The AfD was not complete as it was withdrawn, however I believe the emerging consensus was trending towards deleting the article or turning it into a redirect. As a result, I turned the newly created article into a redirect and explained why to Rcsprinter.

On 3 January the Skyline 199 article was deleted as the result of a completed AfD (albeit with minimal participation). He recreated the article and again tried to abuse WP:RPP to prevent anyone from deleting the article. I explained this went against the AfD and wasn't appropriate and it was subsequently speedily deleted.

On 10 January Rcsprinter created "key bus routes in Derbyshire", essentially the same as "important bus routes in Derbyshire" and gaming the system by trying to same content under a new title. It was quickly turned into a redirect, but on 10 February Rcsprinter restored the article without discussion.

There are more diffs available, with Rcsprinter edit warring, and simply not understanding policies. In a nutshell, it's clear that Rcsprinter123 is treating Wikipedia like a game and is not abiding by the rules, despite repeated warnings. I think a block on the grounds of Wikipedia:Competence is required may be in order, but am seeking wider input. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Endorse this summary completely. Rcsprinter appears to act in good faith on many occassions, and has a fair number of constructive edits (Template:Meat product navbox and Talk:Burger King/GA2 spring to mind), but also shows a serious lack of judgement on a variety of issues. In addition to the above, there's also the creation and subsequent speedy deletion of User:Sf07 and Template:Do not edit, edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, the odd totally weird edit, a recent block for copyright violations, creation of User:RcsprinterBot... certainly enough to show a lack of competence. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I can hear you all talking about me, you know.

Well, thanks for the constructive edits thing, but you don't have to be so rude! For a start my name is Rcsprinter123 not Rcsprinter, and then, it's very unfair when everybody just keeps deleting the stuff I made! Skyline 199 etc would have made great articles if they had been on there a bit and the community would have edited and expanded it. And it is notable, as it serves as a staple to nearly half of Derbyshire; I mean every single London bus route has its own page, even if it is minor!

I am not edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, just keeping the key.

The bot is still in progress, so there's no need to delete that either. It will update transport pages.

I also think there should be an important bus routes in derbyshire page, to set them apart from the others.

I also can't think why anybody never created a meat navbox before...

Yours slightly-angrily, RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt you want to help, I notice you've nominated several articles at WP:GAC presumably with the intention of improving them. However, you have consistently shown that you are not interested in abiding by the consensus of AfDs, recreating deleted articles multiple times, and don't seem to understand policies such as Wikipedia:Notability or why the AfDs have been closed in the way they have. I was unaware of the block for copyright violations, and frankly it's not filling me with confidence. I'm afraid I just don't think you are sufficiently competent, regardless of your intentions. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. I am sure Rcsprinter123 thinks what he is doing is completely acceptable, but the antisocial attitude of ignoring community discussion and restoring articles inappropriately is not something we want on Wikipedia. He may think it's unfair if his work is deleted, but if he creates non-notable entries then that's to be expected. London bus routes are sometimes notable, sometimes not. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument here. AD 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Outing in an AFD thread

Scamwarning (talk · contribs) has outed another editor in this edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji. As a new user, Scamwarning may not be aware of the restrictions, but the edit needs to be redacted anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this one -- editor is apparently using his own full name, which is linked to the article subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just by the by, I've also listed this page in the BLP noticeboard as I'm concerned where this is going--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, and not wishing to confirm or deny an outing, the scamuser editor has only suggested that this agency might have the subject as a client, and there is no apparent link (unless you've seen something I haven't). So there is no particular reason to think that name given is the same person as the one working at the agency, nor that the agency is related to the subject. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also outed in a thread; I'd like this edit to be redacted. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The diff you provided only mentions you by your username. I'm not seeing any violation of WP:OUTING in the short statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle

First time reporting this sort of thing, couldn't find a specific Twinkle-abuse page. I gave BLGM5 (talk · contribs · count) a warning about putting [106]"fuck off" in an edit summary using Twinkle (and personal attacks on their talk page); BLGM5's response. Any reason not to remove Twinkle privileges? A block as well? User has been notified. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also bit a newbie, referring to them as a "dipshit". GiantSnowman 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Telling another user to fuck oof is gross incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I happen to know someone who got blocked for that w/o warning on first offense. Time to call Sarek :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The twinkle instructions make very clear that you are still personally responsible for all the edits you make with the tools, so I don't think this is a twinkle issue but a straightforward abusive editor one and should be treated the same as if they had made the edits by hand.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Twinkle instructions also say that abuse of Twinkle may result in the loss of Twinkle privileges, right? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with paint that whilst the user has breached civility (and should be sanctioned for that) that is a different issue from abusing twinkle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate for me to block as the user (as the most recent recipient of a personal attack)? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say not as you are involved, but my interpritation of that tends to be rather less forgiving then its useral implimenation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48hrs. Someone else can handle the Twinkle issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this an overreaction. He was warned. Did he repeat the offensive behaviour after the warning? No, nobody bothered to wait to see if he would. (Saying "poof be gone" while removing a warning is not in itself an insult; it's just a harmless expression of being annoyed.) Incidentally, not that it excuses the "fuck off", but a certain amount of exasperation at the IP who was stubbornly revert-warring to include a piece of silly unencyclopedic peacock language into an article (which is what triggered the insulting summary) was understandable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm removing the "not that it excuses" bit. This was a long-term disruption IP who had been revert-warring to include those words since at least last September ([107]), repeatedly forcing semi-protection or "pending changes" on the article. In solidarity with all those who defend encyclopedic quality against such people, I will here say too: yes, that IP user should fuck off. And I will oppose any good-faith contributor being sanctioned for loosing their cool once in a while when dealing with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the "poof be gone" to imply that I was a Poof. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Poof" is slang for homosexual in British English but not American English. The "poof" in "poof be gone" refers to the sound of something disappearing magically. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's how I understood it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, same here, hence why I didn't raise it earlier when I noted the "dipshit" comment. GiantSnowman 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew that "poof" was referring to a puff of smoke in this case, and was not a homophobic comment. I considered that this was well past the WP:WQA stage (minor warnings), and well into a preventative stage. Someone else's actions may explain extreme incivility, but does not excuse your own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the basic principle: if an otherwise productive, good-faith user gets out of line, you warn them. And then you wait to give them a chance to stop. That is preventative. A sudden immediate block is not. – Unfortunately, this may now be moot, because the user is apparently now too angry to ask for an unblock (which I would otherwise support). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He may have been overdue for being uncivil. The edit summary for this which is just a simple Engvar issue has a totally inappropriate response.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

SPA Trolling

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jigokuniotirokusogaijin (talk · contribs · count)is only using he account to put POV templates on every single Criticism of country pages[[108]]. I have attempted to undo them (Note no discussions have been opened up on the alleged POV) but its getting a bit much (so far he’s done it to 12 articles).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I did warn him on his talk page before the last edit to Anti-Americanism. I also created a level 2 warning after that edit. User seems to be moving from page to page quickly and likely without reading the material. I suggested on their talk page that if they have specific complaints about the content of the article to bring it to the article's talk page.--v/r - TP 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I think he's a troll. I was undoing his edits as fast has he was making them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Something about "bullshit foreigners" in their username makes me think they're indeed a troll. Could use a username block anyway.--Atlan (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It means something like "Be buried in shit in Hell, Foreigners". JanetteDoe (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A laudable sentiment indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock of Sinehannitikyokuugaijin (talk · contribs)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Block the user. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For reference see here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilspaul (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I have no idea about the subject, but the rants posted on Talk:Roman Catholic Brahmin by this user are getting somewhat out of hand; s/he is now apparantly IP-socking as 136.8.2.69 (talk · contribs). Could someone else try? I did. Twice. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

... and I had already began blocking them before this ANI was filed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I see. So just keep an eye on the IP then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to see how dynamic his IP address is - I did block the underlying IP in this case, but it might change. Let us know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by User:Srobak

I started a discussion with User:Srobak after I saw he considered this vandalism worth an immediate lvl 4 "only" warning, but didn't actually bother to revert the vandalism itself (warning was 4 minutes before somebody else reverted the vandalism according to my timestamps). After looking at the users history and talkpage I noticed that the user likes to give out lvl 4 "only" warnings like candy. See for example this reversion of an [obvious good faith edit] and the following lvl 4 "only" warning. There are many, many more examples of this behavior in the users edit history and almost his entire talkpage consists of messages telling him to stop templating the regulars and go easy on the warnings as far back as two years ago. Discussion on the user talkpage was not productive as I was told "1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" - then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day." [109]. Faced with such a serious wp:BITE and WP:AGF violations I had no choice but to report the user and request he is added to the Twinkle blacklist to prevent him doing further damage. My apologies if this is supposed to go on some other page, I couldn't think of any other place which might appropriate. Yoenit (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that this sort of thing seems to vbe croping up quite a bit do we need a twinkle noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note; the revert seems to have been at 00:49 and the warning given at 01:45 :) Agree the rest is an issue though --Errant ^(chat!) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As you quoted me above - you do indeed need to check your watch before making mis-informed, libelous accusations. The warning was issued 56 minutes after the revert, not 4 minutes before! Now, you get apologize here for all to see. Neither incident were biting in nature on my part. Both were deliberate acts of vandalism and/or mis-information on the anonip's parts. After years of extensive vandalism and DFE being endlessly contributed to both of those pages (you should review the page history of both to see the endless counts of "eats babies" and "died 2010" and other stuff), it is clear that shooting them with a squirtgun has absolutely no effect. Time to use the firehose. Now - as you seem to think that this is a TW abuse case, it further goes to illustrate that you need to seriously review your criteria. You will do a lot more good by helping to combat the rampant vandalism here at WP instead of undermining the efforts of those who are. The time for placating to that kind of nonsense has long since passed and you now taking deliberate measures to actually enable them will only make the problem much worse. Srobak (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, apologies for that. I compared the date sign on the talkpage with the time of the vandalism diff, never realizing there is an hour difference between the two due to my timezone setting. Yoenit (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the post I edit conflicted with I want to clarify I apologize only for messing up the time difference on that warning. I strongly disagree with your attitude towards vandalism fighting and think your behaviour makes you a danger to the project. Yoenit (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. As it was a significant foundation for your complaint, it does negate it a bit. That being said - I strongly disagree with your attitude towards not fighting vandalism - actually placating to it - a behaviour which has a very demonstrated track record of being a "danger" to the project - but to each their own. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You gave a level4im warning to an IP who provided the information that Phil Collins was dating Dana Tyler, which is supported by this interview, among other coverage, with a note to "cut the crap". Since it clearly wasn't crap, though the IP didn't provide a citation, I think that you should take the advice you've been given here to dial it down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't accuse other editors of "libelous misinformation" for accidentally misreading a timestamp. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek - please decide where you would like to have this conversation - I don't have time to respond to fragmented discussions with you at multiple pages. As I said in your other thread - no cite was provided, and your are not citing a WP:RS. On top of that - citing it here does not help the issue. Perhaps you should contribute it to the article. As for the timestamp - as it was a very pointed factor for even starting this ANI to begin with - yes I am well within my right to demand accuracy in said complaint. Had Yoenit bothered to correct it in the first place and continue the discussion on my TP before over-reacting and starting an ANI, I am sure we could have found a mutually agreeable conclusion. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A), level 4 'Only' warnings are almost never appropriate as a first warning, B) your tone here is entirely too harsh. Tauntingly demanding he publicly apologize for libel because he misread a timestamp? Correct him and move on. The rest of his report is valid. --King Öomie 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They are more than appropriate for obvious, blatant vandalism. The rest of your comment is addressed in my response to Sarek as you are both saying the same thing.Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if there isn't a clear intent to harm the encylopedia. Adding unsourced but non-controversial information (rumors) doesn't fit the bill. That's a bad edit, not vandalism. --King Öomie 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would view it as controversial, but I can see where opinions may differ on that. However - I also view mis-information being contributed to an article as slightly more harmful than being categorized as a "bad edit" - a term usually reserved for something more trivial as poor formatting, incorrect/accidental content deletion, contributing to the wrong section, etc. But if indeed the admins view mis-info as bad editing - then there are some templates and guidelines that are going to require an overhaul. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the editor could conceivably have been trying to make the article more informative, but was doing so incorrectly or in a non-constructive way, you aren't looking at vandalism. The key issue here is intent. Dropping a 4i warning on someone for a single non-vandalism edit is pure mastication. --King Öomie 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see an explanation of what in this article he thought deserved a "close paraphrasing" tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Already addressed in the article talk page. You can refer to and follow up with it there. The tag has also (incorrectly) been removed, and I have not reverted it (yet). In addition - that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Srobak (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not addressed. You said "it's close paraphrasing of the source", someone asked "what's close paraphrasing of the source", and you said "I already answered your question."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I cited the source from which the close paraphrasing originated. A quick perusal of the source will identify where. However - as I have already indicated above - the tag has been dropped and I have not pursued it further, the issue is unrelated to the one at hand in this discussion and can be continued on the article talk page if you really think it is a pressing issue. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have no intention of working collaboratively. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there are no other words. Take what I say AS what I say and at face value. Do not tell me what I mean in what I say. That is not up to you, and without doing a mind meld you are not able to read minds. If you would like to work collaboratively on that issue, then there is a place for that... and it's not in this thread. Srobak (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, it would have taken less time to answer my question than to complain about me. What in that article was paraphrased so closely that it deserved a huge honking banner at the top of the page?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Honest to God... 1st> I am not and have not complained about you. 2nd> You are beating a dead horse. The issue was dropped some time ago. Why you are hell-bent on turning it into a federal case is mystery, and is not helping matters or WP. 3rd> I provided ample information in the article talk page (the correct place for the discussion) regarding the paraphrasing so that if someone were to take it upon themselves to even glance it over, it would be evident. I am not in the business of spoon-feeding things to people, and I am not about to start now - even for a WP admin. If I really thought it was THAT important after the OA reverted and posted their reasons why - I would have pursued it further. 4th This is not the place for the execution of what you are pursuing. Are we done yet? Srobak (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please either A) link to the point where you previously explain what the issue is (source and our text) or reexplain here. It's a reasonable request. People often are asked to link to previous discussions to show that they did or didn't do something. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another misuse of vandalism warnings: last week this edit received an "only" warning from Srobak for being inconsequential.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to take a look at the warning and edit history of that ip. It is not the first time it had been issued a lvl4, and honestly should have been blocked long ago. Srobak (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That particular edit wasn't vandalism. For a little optimism, you should see vandals NOT vandalizing as a glimmer of hope, and instead gently link them to policy pages. --King Öomie 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also noted and understood Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now from this vantage point, seeing that you've had a different working definition of vandalism than is laid out in WP:VAND (which I don't really fault you for, seems like there's a lot of it going around), you can understand our reaction to your warnings, right? --King Öomie 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I will try to use better discretion in my patrolling, and issue vand warns only for genuine vandalism, while being more support/informative to the others. It just gets old having to constantly fix the same pages multiple times a day while genuine vandals get pass after pass. Wears on my patience a bit, and I over-reacted towards those who were not necessarily deserving of it. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much settles that, unless someone feels the need to open another thread. I really don't think any kind of sanction is in order, and the content issues are better settled at the pages themselves or at DR. Absent further activity here, I suggest listing this as Resolved. --King Öomie 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on...he is insisting that he is going to template the regulars and using Twinkle to do it. Clearly it is disruptive, just look at his talk page. If he insists on templating the regulars then I'm all for taking the tools from him. I'd like to know he isn't going to do that again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let's not drive helpful folk away from the project for minor transgressions. To prevent a snowballing which will occur, sadly, if this editor is looked at too closely, I endorse oomie's idea to close this. Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"He's a great editor, just don't look at his contributions?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shame I have to say this, but... yeah! Group dynamics are such that if pretty much anyone with his sort of edit count is looked at and presented harshly enough a case could be made for a long block at the least, an indefinite ban at the worst. In an ideal world, you would be right (ironically, in an ideal world, so would Srobak as he would be perceived literally) but we have to look at reality.Egg Centric (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So Berean - you are actually endorsing bad edits/vandalism/whatever by people just because they have an account? If that is genuinely the administrative consensus then you all can do whatever you want. Registered users/regulars should be held to an even more strict adherence to the guidelines and policies than the anonip users - just like what you are doing to me here. If you are going to allow excessive latitude to users who obviously should know better - then you have far bigger issues and problems to worry about than me, and I will be happy to take my leave of this place as there is no longer a point in fighting a losing battle. Berean - you really ought to consider not putting the cart before the horse in this, and actually look at what the root cause of the issue in such a circumstance really is. Srobak (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Can I take that as a "yes, I'm still going to template the regulars"?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you always answer a question with another question? There are times when a template is warranted by a user. The fact that they are an anonip or a registered user is inconsequential. Just because a user creates an account does not ensure they undergo some sort of metamorphoses. As stated above - if anything a regular user should be far more aware of and accountable to policy and guideline adherence. Yes, I know your response will be to cite Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars - which is an essay - not a WP policy or guideline, to which I will respond with the equally valid essay of WP:Do_template_the_regulars. Please keep in mind I did not write either essay, and they both make very valid points - regardless of your personal feelings. Again - if the administrative consensus is going to actually endorse this lunacy - I'll be happy to just walk away now, and you can pull up the slack, saving you the witch hunt. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on guys, he's been big enough to accept the original problem. Is it necessary to now scrutinise everything he's ever done? WP:DTTR isn't a guideline, even if it's annoying. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine Physics... I see where this is going - and it is truly unfortunate. Let'em get it out of their system. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His judgment is the thing I'm questioning. He presumes a lot and using poor judgment with Twinkle is a bad recipe. He's quick to say that established users ought to know better...but here we are, with him having acknowledged that his judgment concerning vandalism wasn't right...why should we presume that his judgment is right about shoving templates in peoples' faces. I've seen a number of folks telling him not to and no one backing him up on that point...that is a running consensus. I'm simply asking him not to...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually mentioned earlier on about us being "here", and I'm far from perfect. To be honest - rather than all this - I'd have rather gotten templated. That being said... "You have 537 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Shall I leave c&p from the raw watchlist on your talk page, or would you rather I email it to you? Srobak (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about your watchlist. I've asked you to not template the regulars and you threw back a strawman argument above. I asked again for assurance that you won't do it..and you insist that you are right and show nothing towards cooperation but instead state its a "witchhunt". I've suggested that the tools should be removed from you if you don't refrain and that turns into "I'm leaving". What is this? Templating a bot? ...and since when is redlinking verboten?

I suggest letting him do things manually a while and work his way back to the tools. Cramming templates at a few admins and regulars is a bad idea and he hasn't listened to anyone. You need to work with folks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you accept that had he phrased things entirely differently you would have no trouble with him? Egg Centric (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egads, Srobak, I brought you a painless out on a silver platter. You seem insistent on vindication via argumentation, though, so carry on, I suppose. --King Öomie 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vindication, and that is nothing I am interested in - a question was asked, and I answered. What's wrong with even spirited discussion? I appreciate your efforts, and it is unfortunate others opted to turn it into something else. That makes no less than 3 different directions this thread has gone.Srobak (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Short Comment by uninvolved editor

Srobak, I'm glad you're doing this work. You may not be aware, but you're coming off exceptionally aggressively/confrontationally here (heck, even your user page!) and I've no doubt that it's accidental, a feature of text based communication perhaps. Perhaps you may want to look at that - maybe be a little less direct, a little bit more flowery? Egg Centric (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg, I appreciate your feedback... but I will be honest: Flowery isn't me. I know I am direct... I don't pull any punches and I do not beat around the bush. For better or worse - it is who I am, and not just my "online persona". While some folks in this thread may see that as being potentially "problematic" for WP - the more realistic and open minded sort will also be able to identify the strengths and how they could be of far more benefit to WP vs. harm. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, I am the same myself. Nevertheless there is some value in understanding how you come across to others and realising that even if one is in the right objectively, people will agree and disagree with you for all kinds of subjective reasons and taking care of that is wise. Furthermore, when it comes to the biting issue, this perceived aggressiveness (although we see it as straight talking) is a hindrance. Egg Centric (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kerp in mind, too, that what you may regard as "honest plain speaking" may give the opposite impression: that you're being aggressive specifically because you have something to hide. I'm not saying that you lie; I'm saying that aggressive language often leaves the impression that the speaker is lying. People who pride themselves on aggressive plain speaking rarely realize this on their own, which is why I point it out. --174.5.67.203 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another short comment by outside editor

Srobak, we have escalating warning levels for a reason. We try the softly softly approach before the big stick. Unless the edit in question is a serious BLP violation or otherwise egreriously violates our policies you should step through the warning templates in order. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's posted a mea culpa above (after this post). In general, I skip warning steps only when the vandal acts again in a short time (for example, directly reverting my revert of their vandalism). --King Öomie 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One more

Srobak, this isn't about "talking straight" this is about following process and rules. We have a rather strict policy about what is an isn't vandalism and about assuming good faith - not to mention civilty which I guess you just don't agree with. But a level 4 warning means something particular, and so does vandalism - by using it in the wrong context you are making it meaningless.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources

Issue

On Amrish Puri, Winston786 added information without adding a WP:Reliable Source after final warning. User has recently come back from a one week block over this issue. He has had warnings over several articles from me and other users over adding WP:Reliable Source, here, here, here, here, and finally he has made changes to here again without adding references. Thanks--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ranbir Kapoor page is great example of what has happened. See the Talk page here, fascinating. Thanks --SH 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of where this user does not post WP:Reliable Sources, and on many occaisions goes against the source:

1. here
2. here which contradicts this
3. here
4. here
5. here he undid a reliable source.
6. here he seems to have an objection to Urdu.
7. here he contradicts the reliable source.
8. here he deletes what the reliable source says.
9. here he seems to have a strange objection against reliable sources.
10. Note the WP:Competence and WP:Reliable Source raised by an Administrator here

Thanks --SH 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Any interested parties might like to read the discussion on my talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Response

I didn't add it(on Amrish Puri page), I RE-added it, it was taken off by IP 115.188.244.146 on 12th January 2011, it was there earlier. User:Sikh-history, who is consistently stalking only my edits didn't check it and reverted it blindly. I have added sources(and provided better ones, when asked for) in all the disputed pages.

• This case was settled as I immediately provided the reliable source.
• This I have already mentioned.
• This ended up with other user tagging what I added, which was a "fact".Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history himself have been adding unsourced data on pages. His edit history will let you know his obsession with me and is consistent stalking of my edits. Thank You. Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My explaination

2. This is a fact
3. This is a fact
4. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Urdu.
5. here I did not do it.
6. This explained above
7. here not contradicting, infact adding
8. This I did not, wrote EXACTLY whats written in the source
9. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Punjab.

Further Comments

User:Sikh-history seems to have a pro Punjab and pro Sikh bias and a little anti Hindu bias in his editions, also the user seems to be madly obsessed with me, most of his/her recent edits are the one which follow my edits on a particular page, there are too many such incidents to call it a co-incidence. He/She started editing those pages only after I edited them, so them being on his/her watchlist doesn't really hold too much ground Thank You.Winston786 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism originally from Haryana, and have lived in Punjab, not that it is relevant, but then again you must remember to WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks--SH 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to have a religious history which could be a reason for his supposed bias. Winston786 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at school articles

Adolescent vandals teeing off on their schoolmates, who are private persons, at least one particularly nasty case. Very recent IP/new user edits, sometimes multiple edits to the articles. Edits reverted, but need to be removed from public view.

• Tell City High School
• Philo High School
• Franklin High School (El Paso, Texas)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Think I got them, but I left a couple that didn't seem revdelable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Are comments made about a real person, made on a BLP of another person eligable for Revdel? As I mailed a revision to the Oversight list, but it was deemed not eligible for oversight nor for revdel as it was seen as simple vandalism. Jarkeld (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably. The oversighters are much more conservative (as it should be) about using their tool than admins. If you post the diff, I can clean it up. --Jayron32 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This one. Jarkeld (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and an earlier one by the same IP as well. --Jayron32 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the page User:Augustusguarin a violation of our licenses?

Is the use page User:Augustusguarin itself a violation of our licenses? It seems to be a translation of Dot-com bubble to another language, which I think is probably Tagalog. However, there is nothing to attribute it to Dot-com bubble. Could someone please help? What should be done with it? Should it be deleted, or should someone encourage this user to send this article to the Tagalog Wikipedia if it has no such corresponding article (after properly attributing it to us, first)? Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that this page is getting into content categories it has no business being in. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• If they want to transwiki something, userspace doesn't seem inappropriate to do that. I did comment out the categories. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Attribution can (and should) be provided after the fact; this should take care of that. –xeno^talk 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I edit warring? (with a bot?)

Resolved

Addressed on talk page.

See [110] --Perseus8235 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism of Starwood Festival

An editor keeps adding unsupported claims of Satanists attending Starwood. When stopped, he/she just picks a new name or logs in with no name and adds it back. There's never any attempt to include a citation or reference, just repeated insertion. I would appreciate it if something could be done about this. Rosencomet (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspect User:BKLisenbee is evading topic ban

I strongly suspect [[::User:BKLisenbee|BKLisenbee]] (talk · contribs) is editing Paul Bowles, Mohamed Hamri, and Tangier via 174.46.116.2 (talk), and is thus editing in violation of the topic ban that User:FayssalF imposed in July 2008. I have already blocked 174.46.116.2 for 24 hours, but I believe I should give notice here. This has been going on for 5 or 6 years but I don't recall an occurrence more recent than a year ago: [111],[112]. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)