Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Users Epeeflech and Wjemather

Unresolved

 – waiting for admin close Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two have been debating for awhile about various issues. Epeefleche asked me to look into it. I don't know who's right or wrong (maybe they both are somewhat both), but it seems to be at an impasse. Specifically, Epeefleche has asked Wjemather not to post on his talk page; which he continues to do, and which he justifies on policy grounds. I advised Wjemather that posting on others' pages when they ask you not to is a breach of etiquette (as I myself have been told from time to time), and that he needs to seek another course of action, such as talking to his most trusted admin about the issue. I would like to hear some opinions by the folks here who are smarter than I am (which is most of you), as to what these editors need to do to resolve their disagreements. It's worth pointing out that Wjemather was issued a 2-day block in January for harassment of Epeefleche. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I’ve got to catch a flight and am not in much of a mood to use wiki-jargon and beat around the bush with oratory about “assume good faith” when it’s clear that WJE is just trying to harass Epeefleche. WJE thought he discovered a valid rationale to go rattle a stick on Epeefleche’s cage. I actually backed WJE on the thrust of his point (Epeefleche failed to add a proper fair-use rationale to the image of a book cover). But his second post roughly 20 hours later was clearly intended to badger. Then WJE tried to leave an alibi note on my talk page here. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• No editor has the right to request that other editors not place valid warnings on their talk page. Wjemather's warnings are valid, Epeefleche has not responded to them properly. I would suggest that Epeefleche simply act on the warnings and move on. As a rule of thumb, any editor that goes the "so-and-so isn't welcome on my talk page" route creates at least as much trouble simply by posting the warning as whatever problem he was reacting to.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^ReplyAerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a week's block for Epeefleche; if he is not willing to make himself accountable to editors and address their concerns then he needs to ask himself if he belongs in a long collaborative project. He has made a point of not addressing the issues raised, and as such is creating an atmosphere which is not conducive to collaborative editing. Copyright notices/rationales are not pointy issues, it is important they are done right, and that is the issue of concern and it shouldn't be deflected away from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^Kww and Betty Logan, while it would certainly be inappropriate to ban someone from your talkpage in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate complaints, Epeefleche requested that Wjemather leave his page over a year ago due to ongoing harassment, and not recently in response to these complaints. Even if legitimate they clearly demonstrate a lack of caring for Epeeflech's request, and at worst could be his attempt to purposely disregard his request to leave his page by finding legitimate reasons to post there.AerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor has asked another editor not to post on his/her talk page, then the second editor shouldn't do so. This is particularly the case when the second editor has been blocked for harassing the first. There are 1,000 admins and 10,000 other editors who can post there, I'm sure everyone can find one; for example, by posting on this board instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request, someone will have to point it out to me. In general, I advise that everyone ignore such requests. Requesting other editor's to refrain from talking to you is very rarely warranted, and I can't see a valid motivation in the case.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the user page guideline does anticipate users asking others to stay off their page. From WP:UP "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)". So you can ask people to stay off your page, but they aren't obligated to do so. That said, in my limited experience the best thing to do with those who persist in posting to your user page after you've asked them to stop is to just delete their comment. Certainly allowed and occasionally called for. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've talked past your point, sorry I misunderstood. My point is that there is nothing wrong with asking a user to stay off your page if you feel it's the best way forward... Hobit (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't miss my point: I think WP:UP provides a weak accommodation for a distastefully common practice. " ... it is probably sensible to respect their request ..." is hardly a rousing endorsement.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading up to the request that Wjemather stay off of Epeefleche's talk page was a significant ammount of wikihounding on Wjemather's part. Certainly this occurs on many articles that Epeefleche had written or substantially contributed to including; Richie Scheinblum, Monte Scheinblum, and The Israel Law Review . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Wjemather was blocked for harassing Epeefleche would be one thing in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not in any policy or guideline or essay that I can recall, but I remember a bit of advice regarding the "necessity" of posting on anothers talkpage; if there is a legitimate issue then someone else will post the necessary advices or comments - and if you are the only person thinking that notices or comments are required on someones talkpage, then you are likely wrong. Therefore a request to not post on someones talkpage is reasonable - there are plenty of others who can raise any legitimate issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; the request by Epeefleche for WJE to stay off his talk page after Epeefleche had been hounded no-end by WJE (to the point that WJE was blocked for a period of time over it), is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect; no one wants to have their own personal wiki-hounder on their tail at every turn. Moreover, the community doesn’t need more wikidrama just because an editor has a deep personal dislike for another editor and can’t leave well enough alone when the first opportunity presents itself.

  WJE knew full well his poring over Epeefleche’s activities to find a legitimate shortcoming was going to A) be pushing it, and B) probably going to be passable because Epee’s failure to include the proper fair-use rationale was indeed something that needed rectifying. So Epeefleche reminded WJE that Epee had received a belly-full of his hounding and wanted to be left alone, without his own personal inspector looking over his shoulder giving him the white-glove treatment. WJE’s response was, only 22 hours after his first notification, to weigh in again on Epee’s talk page, demanding immediate action while employing a threatening tone (This is the final warning…). That’s just baiting under a pretense.

  I think we are all reasonably experienced wikipedians that we don’t have to beat around the bush and ignore the 800-pound gorilla of human factors at play here. WJE was blocked for wikihounding Epeefleche and simply seized an opportune moment to rattle another editor’s cage and then had to go the extra mile by using a bossy and demanding tone to push buttons. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest WJE Block & Interaction Ban for Harrassment//Hounding/Disruption. Hounding and disruption by WJE has been a year+ problem. For 13 months, I've turned the other cheek. I limited my reaction to only warning WJE, watching as others warned (and blocked) him, and otherwise ignored him. But it seems appropriate to address the problem now. The point that BB raises above, while it falls squarely within the harassment guideline, is only the tip of the WJE harassment problem that has now come to a head, as detailed below. I request that WJE be again blocked (for harassment/hounding/disruption reasons, as he was 2 months ago), and banned from interacting with me.

January block. WJE was blocked 2 months ago for disruption on my talkpage (harassment and a personal attack, and starting an edit war), following his hounding me.

His block was affirmed 3 times. First by the blocking sysop:

"Your unblock request only makes me more convinced that this block is the only thing preventing you from carrying on whatever dispute you have with Epeefleche, much to the detriment of both of you and the project. This block has ... to do with ... your conduct on Epeefleche's talk page and the dispute which you then took to ... an article to which Epeefleche is ... far and away the primary contributor and to which you made your first edit today—to revert somebody who thinks (whether rightly or not, I don't know and I don't really care) that you're hounding them, no less! That's before we get to the matter of the edit warring or the edit summary."[1]

It was then affirmed by 2 other sysops.

Hounding. In addition to the above, sysop Beeblebrox in affirming WJE's January block advised WJE:

"It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done."

Editors Legitimate and Bachcell identified WJE's behavior over a year ago as hounding as well. I requested many times that WJE not hound me. Such as on February 3 and 6, 2010[2], February 28, 2010, March 20, 2010, November 7, 2010, January 17, 2011, and March 20, 2011.

An example of his hounding--Just hours after a testy exchange on another subject, WJE's next act on February 3, 2010, was to single me out and AfD an article I had just created. His AfD failed. But as I pointed out to him, that suggested an apparent effort on his part to confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress.[3] The core of wikihounding.

Yet here WJE is--after a year of warnings, and after receiving a block and admonitions from 3 sysops—doing it again. Fixating on my 6 recent "image-creation" edits.

How could WJE just "come across" my adds of 6 images? The images are not within the area of interest he professes to have--UK/golf/cricket/darts articles. Indeed, all WJE's top article edits are golf and dart related. But these edits that he is confronting me on relate to covers/logos of a US philanthropy book, and 5 local US Jewish newspapers. As has been his pattern for a year now, WJE just showed up at some obscure part of the project, moments after I edited there, at pages he had never edited, to revert me or attack my edits.

This also calls into question WJE's assertions, at his unblock request, that:

"I absolutely contest their characterization of my edits as hounding"; and

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them"; and

"I repeat, I do not wish to engage in any dispute or conflict with Epeefleche ... now or in the future.... I cannot be any clearer on that."[4]

Wikipedia:Harass states:

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out [an] editor ... and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

It also indicates that consequences of harassment can include "blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban." And says: "If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." WJE has already received multiple warnings over the past year. And his first block (for hounding, disruption, and a personal attack) 2 months ago.

Disruption; ignoring request he not post on my talkpage. Another sysop (Sandstein) in affirming WJE's January block said to him, as to WJE's disruptive personal attack on my talkpage: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it".

I had earlier requested that WJE not be disruptive and not post on my talkpage. Most recently, twice yesterday,[5] November 7, 2010, and January 17, 2011. I requested that WJE not revert my deletions on my own talk page on November 29, 2010. That was a violation by WJE of WP:HUSH, part of the harassment guideline. I also requested that WJE not be uncivil and not edit war with me on November 7, 2010.

In posting yet again on my talkpage, WJE ignored my clear request[6] that he not do so. To put this problem into stark relief, I am the editor whose talk page WJE leaves messages on most often. By a 2-1 margin. Wikipedia:Harass includes "repeated annoying and unwanted contact".

Substance; Non-AN/I issue. The substance of WJE's uninvited message is a non-AN/I side-issue. And what appears to be a baseless one, at that.

He is singling me out to attack my use of a book/newspaper cover "use in infobox" rationale in half a dozen images. But, that is the accepted rationale for many thousands of such images.

Furthermore, I added those images only after receiving precise advice from a senior editor (Beyond My Ken) who focuses on images, which I followed.

See BMK advice, and BMK's comments on the substance of WJE's assertions here ("technically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. ... As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice)").--Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think an interaction ban would be the best way to go with this, and would support a temp block of Wjemather. There is no need to be dealing with any problems from an editor you have a past history of harassment with, there are plenty of other copyright violations in the world, and many other people you can contact to deal with copyright or other concerns with Epee. Not assuming good faith this seems like an attempt to look for a mistake Epee has made just so that he can have a legitimate reason to post on his talkpage, and if that is so then that would be completely inappropriate. Whether or not he deserves a block, an interaction ban should prevent any further problems between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I agree with Aerobic Fox 100%. The injured party is Epeefleche, it seems plain to me, and this is a pretty clearcut case of Wikihounding by Wjemather, who appears to be unable to get over his previous issues. Many of us have other editors who aren't our cup of tea; the answer is to walk away instead of following their edits and looking for a fight, which almost always turns into a violation of WP:BATTLE. To sum up: an interaction ban for Wjemather is called for, and if imposed and not acknowledged and full compliance not agreed to by Wjemather, a protective indef block should be imposed until compliance is agreed to. The community should not tolerate cases of this type. I would also suggest Epee make an attempt to stay clear of Wjemather as possible. Thanks to Baseball Bugs for bringing the case here, well done. Jusdafax 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I guess I am not as experienced an editor as I thought because, though I’ve been on Wikipedia for quite a few years, I didn’t know interaction bans were a tool that could be employed. Regardless, it’s just the right tool for this case. The interaction ban ought to 1) allow those two to be more productive for the betterment of the project, and B) create less wikidrama for the rest of the community from hereon. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me Wjemather has raised legitimate points of concern, and the argument that "someone else" could do it is hardly an argument for not raising these points yourself, let alone justification for a block. The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. If someone has to keep confronting editors with legitimate concerns and they are not being adequately addressed then I think there is a deeper problem here. Epeefleche's name seems to pop up an awful lot on ANI, and the same pattern emerges every time: deflection by endlessly reiterating policy. This editor has lots of problems with people simply because he creates problems for these people. He creates the situations in which he is "harrassed" through this compulsion to make resolving issues editors have with his edits as difficult as they possibly can be. I think the admins not familiar with this editor should take a closer look at the discussions on his talk page and his history on ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, Betty: The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. For any ordinary editor who notices such a thing, that would indeed be the question. But Wjemather is no ordinary editor in this case and it’s exceedingly unlikely he just accidentally *noticed* what Epeefleche was doing. So the question is whether or not Wjemather violated (again) WP:Harass. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Totally avoidable. Usually, there cannot be too much calm communication. Although Mather singularly failed to identify the offending images, he flagged it as a minor, easily correctable issue, including suggestions as to how to solve the underlying issue. It was a bit nit-picking of a complaint, but not one that warranted the drama that seems to have followed. Usually, it could/would have been put to bed without much fuss with by a simple "oh, thank you. I'll fix it". However, given the raw nerves between the two, the message on Epeefleche's talk page was probably unwise however "in the right" he may have felt he was. I'm unsurprised it was taken as baiiting from the onset. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• [redacted: just as an observation] As to the alternatives to posting to Epeefleche's talk page... in his place (and taking responsibility for my own actions), I would find it even more stressful if Mather would post to venues such as ANI, or another user's talk page instead of mine. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that Mather probably knew he was waving a red flag to the proverbial bull by making that post. The feud seems to have been going on long enough... I think an interaction ban between the two is probably wise precaution given the background. An interaction ban should also include banning provocation such as taking each other to WQA or ANI. However, it should not exclude seeking mediation, if necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Although I agree that taking each other to such fora is provocative, I don't think we should prevent all communication about concerns. If not for Wjemather, we may not have discovered earlier copyright problems and opened the CCI in January. Complaints were made of hounding at that time, as well, but the need for the CCI (although backlogged like the rest of them) was amply demonstrated and has been sustained by a several serious issues that have been detected and cleaned since it was opened. (I'm sorry to say that the bulk of it still has not been checked.) If Contributor B is malformatting references or something like that, certainly that's not so urgent that Contributor A needs to be able to draw attention to it. If Contributor B is violating copyright or otherwise creating substantial risk, that's different. :/ I think we need to leave some venue for noting such serious issues if Contributor A notices that they are occurring...especially if he is the only one paying attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The problem I have with that is that Wjemather approached the CCI with neither evidence of Epeefleche violating copyright (He was instead querying a close paraphrase), nor did he approach with evidence that Epeefleche was persistently violating copyright(He initially only had one example) - and these should be essential requirements for anyone approaching CCI. We should not be encouraging users to take some marginal claim against another user to any noticeboard on the basis that any marginal claim may be tip of the iceberg of some potential serious claim. The user should establish the serious grounds for a claim before doing so - An interaction ban would force Wjemather to discuss these issues with other neutral users experienced in these issues first perhaps search for actual serious issues - and then either correct the issue themselves or the neutral party can raise whatever action needs to be taken. I also dislike the thought that we would encourage the deliberate wikistalking of any user on the grounds of the greater good - it smacks of police state surveillance and enforcement and certainly is not conducive to creating a working community. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I don't think it's very conducive to a working community either if we wind up with situations like this one, which waste community resources both in cleanup and in the fact that we have to wipe out the edits of all contributors who had no idea they were creating unusable derivative works. I'm not suggesting that it will happen here, but closing off all avenues to potential whistleblowers in any event (which is why I refer to "Contributor A" and "B", and not these contributors) seems like a poor choice. Again, if we're talking malformatted references, that's one thing. Copyright problems are something else. I'm not saying that the fora that needs to be open to him is a public one. "Some venue" can easily be the talk page of a neutral administrator or editor or, if even that is too provocative, an e-mail to a neutral administrator or editor. (Note that I'm not raising my hand for this. I've got enough to do. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to come back and make sure that I was clear here and also to reconsider my reluctance to raise my hand. I am not opposing an interaction ban; if User:Wjemather needs to stay away from User:Epeefleche, that's fine with me. My concern rests largely in the thought that such a ban imposed on any user with any other user might prevent valid problems that may constitute grave concern from being addressed, if nobody but the banned contributor is aware. I don't mean at all to suggest that I'm expecting any future issues out of User:Epeefleche. Again, I'm talking about the larger principle. Being conscious of the potential for drama and knowing that "tell somebody" doesn't help if nobody's willing to listen, I will raise my hand after all. If User:Epeefleche is comfortable with that, I'd be willing to accept private or on-Wiki communications from User:Wjemather if he feels he has discovered a serious issue that needs attention. (Frankly, I would think private e-mails would be better, to avoid any potential drama.) If I agree, I'll follow up; if I don't, I won't. I say this trusting that I wouldn't be deluged with trivial concerns; if that were to happen, it would certainly demonstrate the need for the interaction ban and I would, if I could not persuade Wjemather to my view of "serious issue", withdraw my offer. Is this an acceptable compromise? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Details of interaction ban. I appreciate Moon's offer. And Moon clarifying that she is not opposed to an interaction ban on WJE in this case.

I note that the proposed interaction ban on WJE has considerable support above, and that the proposed block on WJE has a measure of support as well. I accept Moonridden's thoughtful suggestion as to how how the interaction ban might applied. I'm comfortable with WJE contacting Moonridden about any legitimate serious issues that require attention. I'm also fine with that being by private email, per Moon's suggestion. That would allow Moon to address any legitimate concerns, while reducing the risk of hounding -- as I expect that at the same time, Moon could note any hounding in violation of wp:harass. I also agree with the above thoughtful suggestion that if WJE does not agree to comply fully with the interaction ban, a protective indef block be imposed until compliance is agreed to.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not wishing to further any ill-feeling there may be, I do not want to get into the substance of the allegations that have been made unless absolutely necessary, but looking at through the incidents listed by Epeefleche it is needless to say that I felt that I was being harassed on many of those occasions and said as much as the time. There are others of course, but I don't think there is much to be gained by anyone in dragging it all up now. It would be better if we could all just let bygones be bygones and move on.

  Ok, let me set the record straight with regards this incident. I have many articles created by Epeefleche that contain various degrees of copyright violation on my watchlist, and have have done since the CCI case was opened. The issue with the images cropped up as one of these articles was edited, namely New Jersey Jewish News. The initial notice I left on Epeefleche's talk page regarding fair use rationale was only intended as helpful guidance to rectify a problem that is easy to fix, and hopefully ensure all future uploaded non-free images would be free from the same problem. It was non-confrontational and contained no warnings. As has been said by others, the appropriate response would have been "thanks, I'll look into it" or something along those lines. Epeefleche's actual response was, by any measure, not acceptable. In hindsight, it would have been better for me to find another avenue to resolve the problem rather than to then post a second message to reinforce the policy issues, and I understand how that message may have been misconstrued.

  Contrary to what some have said, I did not and do not see this as a minor issue. In my view, no copyright issue is a minor one. Policy is clear that fair-use rationale must be detailed and explain why an image meets the criteria, and "for use in the infobox" only explains where it is used. It does nothing to explain what purpose it serves in the article as is required by poilcy and explained in the guidelines. I was unaware that Epeefleche had been advised by another editor regarding fair-use images – I do not share their view that I was being pedantic and strongly disagree with their assertion that most people would assume what is meant so it's fine. The 5 images in question were uploaded on 19 March ([7]) and are actually logos, not book/magazine/newspaper covers, and as such probably have the wrong NFC template in any case. Perhaps MRG could give her opinion on these issues.

  It has also been said that I should have left if for someone else to discover later. The case MRG describes at CCI illustrates exactly why these things should not be left alone – the contributor concerned simply goes along they merry way doing the same thing completely unaware they are contravening policy.

  It should be noted that interaction bans are not a one way street, and any such sanction would also be a ban on Epeefleche interacting with me. I personally do not think any formal measures such as this are necessary, but would informally commit to the following. I will not post any messages on Epeefleche's talk page, unless requested to do so by Epeefleche. Conversely I have no problem anyone with Epeefleche, or his friends, posting on my talk page. Generally I would also (as I do anyway) avoid any articles or discussions in which I know Epeefleche is active – like most people I don't generally check page histories before editing, but I am aware of certain topic areas in which he is very active. However, should our paths cross I see no reason why we should not be able to communicate properly and in a constructive manner, by sticking to the subject in question without pointing fingers and dragging up past problems to use against each other. _wjemather^bigissue 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ripe for Close; requesting imposition of above-described sanctions on WJE. I agree with WJE on one point. There were many more instances of him appearing at articles immediately after I just edited them. Over 13 months. Far from him areas of interest (the golf courses, cricket fields, dart halls of London). On obscure topics. Only to revert me, or challenge my edits.

Check out for example his failed AfD, made the same day I created the article Americans for Peace and Tolerance (a Boston organization) on February 3, 2010. Or his appearance at an article I created on an American blog, the very day I created it on March 18, 2010, to challenge my edits. Or his reverting me the same day I edited at Villa Park High School (a California high school) on December 23, 2010. Or his deletion of refs at an article on an American baseball player, made within hours of me adding them, on December 24, 2010.

The list goes on. I won't bore you with more, unless you want it.

I was therefore, perhaps understandably, taken aback by his blatantly telling 3 sysops 2 months ago, during his 3-times-affirmed block for hounding me, that:

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them ... I cannot be any clearer on that."

I was perhaps a jot less surprised when, just 2 months later, disregarding a year of requests by me and others that he stop hounding me, despite direct admonitions from 3 sysops that he do the same, and undeterred by his 2-day hounding block ... he did the same thing. He followed me to the most obscure of articles, to challenge me yet again. Warnings, admonitions, and a 2-day block apparently are not sufficient.

Given this history, formal measures are certainly required; and clearly they have to be made of sterner stuff than the last 2-day block. I therefore agree with the strong majority above that suggests that an interaction ban be imposed upon WJE. I also agree with those who say that a block is in order.

As to his hostile suggestion that interaction bans cannot be "a one-way-street" -- of course they can be. They are routinely imposed on those who violate wp:harass, as he has done. And not on those that they harass. But no worries -- if WJE hasn't noticed, I'm not seeking contact with him.

I believe that after having kept a stiff upper lip for 13 months now, I'm entitled to have the community finally take him off my back. This is precisely the sort of behavior that wp:harass was meant to prevent.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Epeefleche has made a very solid case, and with recent evidence of such stalking behaviour. As Wjemather has already committed to informal self-restraint, I see it as no physical hurdle to overcome – only psychological – to have it formalised. As to the question of whether the interaction ban ought to be bilateral, no evidence of provocation in the other direction has been advanced, so I'm now inclined to support a unilateral application. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already indicated that I do not wish to get into a long time consuming trawl through past interactions, but there are several instances of Epeefleche leaping in with the sole purpose of harassing me, a couple of AfDs, an article created by Greg L and a frivolous ANI case spring to mind. As does this comment made long after the close of one of those AfDs. Indeed, other contributors have seen fit to voice their concern regarding Epeefleche's behaviour on my talk page. Among other comments are "Has this user been harassing you?" and "Epeefleche is pretty much notorious for following around anyone he has a personal beef with and intentionally taking the opposite position in discussions he's not privy to".

    Epeefleche has made several accuasations in the past such as my arguing about the spelling of Arabic, which I have certainly never done, and restoring removed comment on his talk page, which Epeefleche did not provide a diff for when questioned and I certainly do not recall ever doing on anyone's talk page. I have also been subjected to accusations of trying to suppress terrorism related articles (for some dark purpose?) and even insinuations that I am a supporter of terrorism.

    There are also instances when Epeefleche has contacted friends who have then harassed me or disrupted things by trying to railroad or sidetrack discussions with off-topic and ad-hominem remarks. The latter has evidently happened with others – "the entire noticeboard was railroaded by some weird comments by User:Greg L".

    The evidence Epeefleche presents consists mostly of him issuing warnings and his friends supporting him. That his friends have turned up again here to support him in his goals should be no surprise to anyone, and frankly their opinions cannot be given much weight. _wjemather^bigissue 08:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    • • For the benefits of those who do not know who you consider Epeefleche's "friends" to be, would you care to state the names of said "friends" please, just for the record? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Methinks thou doth protest too much to distract from your conduct, WJE. I’ll quote from a post on my talk page. Given the extremely tortured past history between you and Epeefleche, your hounding him again on his talk page after you had been blocked over wikihounding was the equivalent of two business partners who sued the pants off each other in court, and months later, you ran up Epeefleche’s door and rang the doorbell to point out how his fence was a foot too tall per local ordinances. It surprises no one that Epeefleche didn’t appreciate your stunt.

      As for who’s at fault for the wikidrama and time devoted by the community in trying to separate you two, we don’t see Epeefleche following you around trying to raise cain with bossy messages concluding with “Final warning”; it always seems to be the other way around. Why is that?? Have you considered just putting down your binoculars and stop looking for something to hassle Epeefleche about and flipping furiously through the code book to see if his fence is compliant with building codes? The rest of the community is perfectly capable of handling those sort of things without you on Epee’s arse creating wikidrama every time the opportunity presents itself.

      Try looking towards your own conduct that started this in the first place and stop trying to deflect blame towards “Epeefleche’s friends” after you’ve got yourself into trouble… again. Greg L (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

      
      P.S. It would defuse this whole thing if you would just pledge to go find other things to do on Wikipedia than nitpick at Epeefleche after coming off a block for hounding him. That you found a valid pretense to say “Neener-neener… you did a boo-boo” wasn’t enough for you; you had to leave messages laden with a bossy tone of someone who is admin who is going to lower the boom if you don’t get satisfaction ASAP. You wanted to rattle his cage and got what you asked for. And here you are at an ANI—something you didn’t bargain on—objecting to how you’re getting assailed when all you were doing is trying to act like Mother Teresa for the betterment of the project and all humanity. Save it. Your acting utterly baffled at how you could be so misunderstood is not convincing and does not impress. Please stop playing us for fools and just say you’ll go find something else to do and we’ll be done with this. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

      • Support both of Greg L's statements here as an accurate summary of the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

Over one month ago (February 23rd) was the last time WJE didn’t edit for a full day. It looks like WJE required a wikibreak in the middle of an ANI, which is unfortunate timing. A good alternative would be for WJE to simply pledge to stop following Epeefleche. That isn’t too much to ask and would be an uncanny way to convince the community that more trouble along these lines is not forthcoming. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Time for a sysop to close. This has now been up for 5 days. Many editors have commented. More information has been shared since the string was opened, crystalizing the conversation. Of the last 7 or 8 editors who have commented over the last few days, apart from WJE himself, there has been unanimous support for an interaction ban to be applied to WJE. Sysop Moonridden has even thoughtfully suggested a way to address any legitimate concerns that WJE may have regarding ban implementation. Closure of this string by a sysop in accord with the overwhelming consensus would therefore be appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. There is unlikely to be an emergency where Wjemather simply must be the editor to alert Epeefleche about some problem, so the solution to this time sink is simple: formally notify Wjemather that they are not to interact with Epeefleche. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear, I am not on a wikibreak of any kind. I am simply busy in real life (as it says at the top of my talk page) – it is plain to see that my midweek contributions have generally consisted of one or two minor edits for some time now, and don't think anyone should would want to characterise it any differently. Perhaps they think I should drop everything in real life to deal with this? Take a week off work maybe? Whatever. I happen to be busy this weekend too, so unless there is some vandalism to revert on my watchlist, this may well be may only contribution today.

  I see no reason to expand further on what I have said already. All I will do is state that discussion does not need to be steered as appears to be happening (again) here, and that consensus is not arrived at by a single editor and their friends, however many of them answer the call. _wjemather^bigissue 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Have you considered the possibility that you are employing self-serving, circular logic here? It seems that if the advise from the community amounts to rebuke of what you keep doing and the suggestion that you steer clear of wikistalking and wikibadgering, you attribute that curious phenomenon to being the product of *Epeefleche’s friends*—no mater, as you wrote—how “many of them answer the call”.

    After cranking that bit through your logic machine, out pops “No problem! All my behavior as of late has been *extra special* and was just swell.” Honestly, I think that’s just the public face you like to don whenever you are faced with rebuke. I prefer to think a lesson dawned on you here on how to avoid wikidrama in the future. At least, I hope it’s dawned on you, because the rest of the wikipedian community has to act like those guys with the big shovels and garbage cans following behind the elephants at the parade whenever you cave to temptation and then, when called to the mat, protest about how all you had been doing is washing the feet of the orphans on Wikipedia.

    Yes, you took two-straight days off from Wikipedia (during this ANI), which is something you hadn’t done in the last month that I looked at. In fact, during the last month, you only took a single day off from Wikipedia. During a single, 15-day, never-missed-a-day stretch over the last month, you made 612 edits (averaging 41 edits per day). I had to examine two, max-size, 500-edit history pages just to summarize those 15 days. Perhaps some of your patients in the cardiac ward at the hospital developed arrhythmias and your pager went off. Pardon me all over the place for failing to play “wink-wink”-coy here; I rushed to the conclusion that your two-day absence was best explained as your attempting to just lay low for this storm to blow over. Lord knows no one has tried that tactic before here…

    I move for this to be closed since it’s clear that no pledge or contrition is forthcoming here… apparently because the only people weighing in on this ANI is a small army of “Epeefleche’s friends” who apparently have no valid point to make whatsoever; no contrition this time around, anyway. Greg L (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unanimity. With Johnuniq's comments, we now have 8 or 9 editors in a row (other than WJE) supporting an interaction ban being imposed on WJE.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche, per Johnuniq. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche, per the above. After review of this issue I feel that sufficient evidence was presented to warrant such an action. The previous block for the exact same issue and the unblock requests submitted afterwards were especially convincing.[8]. Yes this was back in January but it seems there is a continuation of the same issue. Hobartimus (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. Previous block of Wjemather for this same issue indicates he is unable to drop the stick and walk away, even when asked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This user appears to be "hounding me."

Note: It appears that User:Gharr posted a comment to this thread just as it was being archived, which resulted in the comment being inappropirately appended to another thread. I've restored the thread from the archive, as Gharr apparently doesn't think the issue is resolved, but I do so being fundamentally unaware of anything about the situation and circumstances of the complaint, just as a matter of tidying up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This section of my talk page describes the situation: User_talk:Gharr#3rr.

I have seen nothing but bad behaviour from aministrators (I include reviewers in that group) I'm far from impressed and I am not happy to see biographies defaced and the reviewers and administrators just ignoring it for far to long--Jacque Fresco article.

I have not contacted this user called User:Sloane and my user page explains why: User_talk:Gharr#3rr. I'm not going to pretend to be nice to a user that is obviously abusive (the defacing of Jacque Fresco article and everyone pretending everying was fine for far too told me enough about this person and the way things are adminstered here) and hounding people is also not acceptable.

(Gharr (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC))--I await to be banned by one of these fine abusive reviewers and adminstrators one day...

See WP:BOOMERANG; you may not have to wait all that long. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the talk page was too long, could you please summarise it? Jammed, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read it all. I've no idea what the anon post on the user page means, and the Venus page is passing-strange. Damned, Gold Hatthis user is a sock puppet^{off-the-reservation
sockpuppet}06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm the user Gharr is talking about. First of all, I was not notified by Gharr of this, which seems blatantly against the guidelines of ANI (thanks to user:Gold Hat for informing me). Secondly, pretty much the only contact that I've had with Gharr, is me warning him of the 3rr rule [9][10], as I noticed a small edit war going on at The Venus Project page. This seems hardly like hounding a user. Methinks User:Gharr should learn assume some good faith. --Sloane (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And methinks this is just another user that fails to understand the difference between "Excuse me, you're violating our policies, here's what you did wrong and how to avoid this mistake in the future" and "Good day. I am Staler Moriarty. I see you're trying to enrich Wikipedia with Truthful content, which I can't allow because I'm evil! See these vicious and spiteful warning messages, they're what expresses my personal hatred towards all your efforts and my desire to see your purely constructive work being undone byte by byte while the administrator cabal laughs at your misery." No, it's not personal, it's a matter of competence from time to time. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm the person Gharr was involved in an edit war with. User:Sloane is not hounding you, and the links you've provided on your talk page don't even show any evidence of that (and two of the edits don't even point to edits made by User:Sloane, that should be grounds for a ban based on false claims). It seems User:Gharr is the one here with the POV issue. Gharr's personal blog has him as an obvious fan of the Zeitgeist/Venus milieu, and he's become a watchdog of those pages, and lashes out at anyone who dares make edits he's not pleased with (see the case with Sloane for instance, or the case of myself providing a scholarly take on Millennarian movements from Cambridge press, to which Gharr deleted).--Evud (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also see this on Gharr's talk page where he believes there is a conspiracy afoot as to people editing The Venus Project.--Evud (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section Missing From This Article

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

---

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".

I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary work for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Good advice, Nil Einne. I started to try to figger the problem, full of good will, but it was just too much work and TLDR, and I couldn't work it out from the user talkpage. Sorry, Gharr, but there's competition for admin attention on this board. You need to present your complaint in a more accessible and less time-consuming way. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

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

--(Gharr (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Thankyou for pointing out the archives, it has been most helpful. It shows that there has been not decision made—it has been left to drift into the disposal bin that you call the archives. Obviously the work load must be way too much for you administrators.

Please let me make it easy for you, this short but sweet passage might also be too long for you to read: say it rambles on, boomerangs will return, and you did not really read it before going on to do other more important things…

My long complaint did not only include User:Sloane it also happens to include you: Gharr3rr “User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Wikipedia for far too long.

I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows this sort of thing to go unchecked for so long???

--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)) “

Perhaps the overloaded in work load for administrators explains why a page that clearly is slander against Jacque Fresco (on his talk page) was left unattended for so long. I understand that document might also be too long for you—so let me clue you in: try and search the document for KKK and see if you have time to go through it all…I am not impressed by a whole lot of stuff and that includes the administration here.

As for a boomerang, I believe it’s returning towards you (your own summary of the picture that Wikipedia wants to paint for all editors—one of adversarial contests and weapons. No doubt User:Sloane is a good student of your lessons with a straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me and yes he even appears unconcerned by the slander against Jacque Fresco (and yes the article was one piece when he put his 20 cents worth of comment in)).

Oh by the way, I’m sorry, did I not mention that I missed out on police training on how to track down abusive administrators and make short, accurate, and snappy reports on the evidence at hand.

From the side of the table I sit on I see abusive administrators and what I see as abusive and threatening tags sanctioned by the administrators—that you by the way. It is also my opinion, User:Sloane tagged this article on a Resource_based_economy for speedy deletion (just before he handed out a 3rr notice to me) much too quickly showing little regard for the person who made the article. --(Gharr (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

OK, so let me get this straight: Sloane's only direct interaction with you is a single 3RR warning? Stickee (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, us admins are volunteers. And, since we're not really obligated to do anything, we end up having this funny tendency not to help out people that go around bashing admins. If you want help from people, I really suggest you don't refer to them as "abusive." It's not productive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said last time, (and re: Lifebaka's point) we also don't tend to help people who can't explain what they're actually complaining about brief enough that we don't fall asleep reading it, particularly when what we do read suggests there's nothing worth reading. Also are you trying to complain to us about problems you've had with other editors or carry on a conversation with the other editors? If it's the later, take it to the other editors talk page. If it's the former, avoiding 'you' so much may help. Finally, if you have problems with abusive admins it would be helpful if you would specify who you're referring to. I appreciate you think all admins are bad for not dealing with your complaint but I presume you've problems with abusive admins goes beyond that and of the people you appear to have issues with (Sloane, Evud, OpenFuture) none of them are admins. Nor am I or Stickee or Demiurge1000 or Gold Hat or Beyond My Ken. LifeBaka appears to be the only admin here (and Bishonen who replied above). One more thing, I'm sure some here can tell you I'm a master of long posts myself. Yet even I couldn't be bothered making sense of what you were saying in your talk page. Most people are far more succinct then me. And none of us went to some special school. Take from that what you will) Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" counts for nothing (he/she shows little care about the "slanderous" state of the Jacque Fresco talk page--that much is clear):

• "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)."

• User:Sloane is currently engaged in extensive edits on both The_Venus_Project (See [11]) and The_Zeitgeist_Movement ([12]). Given his comment, I might wonder why he is bothering—perhaps he is putting up a good old show of wiki-love for you upper admin types?

• I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows such slanderous talk page articles to remain for so long. From my point of view the system failed really badly.

--(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• Gharr makes reference to an article having been tagged for speedy deletion by Sloane. It is presumably this one, now a redirect to The Venus Project. That was speedy deleted by administrator 2over0 under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement. That being the case, if it was Sloane who tagged it for speedy deletion, it was the proper thing to do. I hope that clears up and disposes of part of Gharr's complaint. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another user contributed to the talk page about the resource based economy and I felt the speedy deletion tag might not have given the user who created the article enough time to respond. A tag blanking <--! like this one --> the article out might have sufficed if there was also copyright issues. Such a speedy-deletion tag is aggressive in nature as was the straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me that followed shortly afterwards. --(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

The 3RR template you were given is a warning about violating the edit warring policy, and is given everyone who does so. So, do you consider yourself above this usual courtesy of being warned about policies before being blocked for violating them, or do you think that people should be warned about warnings before being warned? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And might I add, in terms of rudeness, an ANI report is way worse than speedy deletion which depends on content, not the provider of the said content and the standard warning given to everyone who breaks the 3RR, not just you. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For those unable to read the deleted history of the article, User:Sloane nominated it for G12 deletion as a copyvio of this page and it was deleted as such by 2over0. Reviewing the deleted content shows that it is indeed a verbatim copy of the Venus Project website with no OTRS ticket verifying any licensing agreements or releases on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll Make the Decision For You (since this looks like drifting to the decision bin)

Okay, this lower section has been slightly less abusive then the first round this article was run through this section (so far), so I should be happy about that at least.

The facts are User:Sloane had history with me via the Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page." User:Sloane’s recent edits of The Venus Project have gone unchallenged because his/her show of power using aggressive speedy-deletion tags and straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me , both of which you support from what I can see so far.

Since you (and dude) are going let this ride to the archives a decision device I like to refer to as a bin, I will make a decision here for you.

Obviously people here don’t mind talk pages that are slanderous, and encourage reviewers and administration (both admin level to me) who don’t mind using grenades when gentle words might suffice. So if you give me aggression (and I especially refer to User:Sloane) I will react in kind. Wikipedia policy might indicate I should act as a mouse and cringe, but that not going to happen, so follow through in the style of attack I expect of you and act on that decision that is impending and decide I’m the problem not User:Sloane or the administration here.

No matter what decision (or no decision) you make, I am quite sure User:Sloane will win the day with your backing, but as for Wikipedia, I got really serious doubts about it’s long term viability using what I see as the current model of operation.

New users that don't have the powers you have are not your punching bags, and you administration types better learn that.

I should also thank you--watching User:Sloane's massive edits that are mostly unopposed has been most educational. --(Gharr (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If that's your attitude, I don't see you having long-term viability here. First, you need to be more clear what you believe is slanderous on that page (ie. link to the WP:DIFF in question, not the whole page). Second, if you're going to attack, you'll get blocked, which only means you lose. There's no vindication in that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But since you support people like neutral experienced (administration level) reviewers like User:Sloane who makes massive edits of Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement and spends his/her time making inputs like this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=420123901 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=419496148 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086712 --User:Sloane edit

I believe you and he/she will make for rapid rising stars in this type of gig if administration holds to your abovementioned attitude. Since I suspect other editors and even admin know exactly what I'm talking about, I will let you ponder on this: your a dinosaur, I don't think your attitude or symbolism helps one bit. I would instead think about your long term viability here instead--because if you win this, Wikipedia will suffer. People will not respect your symbolism or your message because they know there is a falseness about administration that needs only "yes" men, and ultimately such conceitedness will lead the entire organization into disaster. maybe I should call you the Titanic...bite...

--Wake up for Pete’s sake...there are problems to solve so lets solve them...sharp teeth and boomerangs are not needed; they will not make new people feel welcome. From what I have seen, you don't feel too comfortable when they return to you and "BITE." So shut me down, batten down the hatches because there is a storm of your own making coming straight at you if you continue the course!--(Gharr (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

• Seriously dude, maybe you should take a Wikipedia:Wikivacation or something cause you're getting a little hysterical.--Sloane (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Gharr, there is of course the possibility here that you are wrong. You have made an allegation that you are being hounded based on, it seems, a (correctly) deleted article, a (correct) message about editing warring, that contributors are editing an article/commenting on the talk page, and an allegation of 'slanderous content' that is so vague that no one can look into it. There is nothing here that is actionable. On the other hand, you have been aggressive, unpleasant, and insulting. If you don't like the Wikipedia way, you should find another hobby. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Some of us here probably don't understand what a conflict of interest means. If you don't know then take a look at Sloane's work because it is the Epiphany of examples to what happens when someone with a conflict of interest works on a article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=420123901 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=419496148 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086712 --User:Sloane edit

There is certainly more then one way to be insulting and Sloane's work reveals nearly all of them including the ignoring of obvious slander in Jacque Fresco talk page. I think most of the administration here know what conflict of interest is and why Sloane edits are bound to cause problems rather then improve The Venus Project article, The Zeitgeist Movement article and the Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page." ---(Gharr (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, the reason that you're not getting the resolution that you desire here is that it's exteremely difficult to interpret what your complaint is. While things may seem crystal clear to you, it looks like other editors either think some actions are totally valid (e.g. the 3rr warning) or don't seem to understand what you are trying to tell them (e.g. how the Jacque Fresco page is "slanderous" or how Sloane has a COI). For anyone examinging the issue, your diffs are definitely not self-explanatory. Perhaps you could explain how these edits by Sloane demonstrate a conflict of interest? What exactly is slanderous on the Jacque Fresco page? If anything, the vehemence that you defend all of these related pages makes it look like you may have a conflict of interest. What's definitely not helping you make your case is your hostility to everyone who tries to participate in this dispute. Communication is a two-way street: you are sending what other find to be a garbled or incomprehensible message and then getting mad when they don't understand you. I feel that you may be more successful in what you're achieving if you stop accusing others of either ignoring you or using you as a punching bag. Chillllls (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've been reading this discussion for some time now, and I must say that Gharr has very nicely reversed my usual problem of low blood pressure. Gharr, you seem to be ignoring everything people try to tell you. We don't bite the newcomers but since you're so trigger-happy with your accusations, you be ready to face the consequences of such allegations and claims. Let me ask you: do you usually join websites just to attack their policies and ideas? Have you considered joining SourceForge just to complain about the lousiness of open source? You're basically destroying Sloane's reputation by accusing them of being hell-bent on persecuting you - or rather, trying to destroy, because your own lack of competence seems to have resulted in a pile-on against you, created by yourself. As "evidence" to support harassment from Sloane, you give these very same diffs over and over again, while none of them show any trace of what you call "slander". Now, without anything to back it up with, you're accusing Sloane of conflict of interest. Personally, I think you're the one who's got COI, as you seem to be very partisan about Sloane editing the Venus Project article, to the point you're disrupting the encyclopedia (see WP:TE and how many points match your behaviour). That's why I propose you to be topic banned indefinitely from editing content related to Venus Project - it's impossible to collaborate with people who just ignore policies because they're (supposedly) always right and thus above all rules. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are ready to face the consequences of your actions. You currently believe it’s okay to bash new people. That your little “to be topic banned indefinitely” comment will come down without any risk to your-self. You’re little trigger happy trick wont work because there is no substance or proof in the long boring paragraph above that shows you are the one who is “impossible to collaborate” with. And BOOMARANG, your fellow colleagues here know it and you have lost respect among them by trying to “harass” me and your show of very partisan support of User:Sloane. It is you who should be banned from this administration talk page permanently.

Sure, I'm always open to repeating myself because I know you won't answer any hard questions. Your answer is to blame the messenger, to say there is no history between me and User:Sloane, and to defend the status quo. So here it is again, but "You have already made your statement--you think the "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" is "A OKAY" and the rest of the administration knows your opinion now--but I will repeat the section of interest here in case some of them need a refresher. ==>

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" counts for nothing (he/she shows little care about the "slanderous" state of the Jacque Fresco talk page--that much is clear):

• "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)."

• User:Sloane is currently engaged in extensive edits on both The_Venus_Project (See [13]) and The_Zeitgeist_Movement ([14]). Given his comment, I might wonder why he is bothering—perhaps he is putting up a good old show of wiki-love for you upper admin types?

• I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows such slanderous talk page articles to remain for so long. From my point of view the system failed really badly.

<== Thank you for showing that you care about Wikipedia rules and future; Or perhaps not! --(Gharr (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Yet again, I see no "slander" (why do you keep putting quotes around it anyway?) on JF talk page, nor do I see any in the edits by Sloane. You'll have to be a bit more precise in your claims to be understood. In any case, I'm willing to accept any consequences of my edits, but I severely doubt that I'll get banned from any place on Wikipedia by questioning your self-granted right to persecute people who disagree with you, and I have to admit that I found your "boomarang"-argument rather silly. You're trying to cover behind that WP:BITE card despite you being active in Wikipedia way longer than I have been - you've been here since mid-2010, way before I started editing even as an IP! As for your behaviour: you've ignored vast amounts of advice, made false allegations about other editors disagreeing with you (implying Sloane has a COI without any actual evidence and asking me to get banned) and shown clear signs of aggressive editing. This, combined with everything in this thread makes it clear that you can't contribute neutrally about the Venus Project, but instead have created this huge Wiki-trial because people haven't accepted your POV on Venus Project (see Gharr's blog). On grounds of your hostile behaviour towards other editors and your attitude that you're always right I stick by my proposal to indefinitely ban Gharr from editing articles related to Venus Project as they have shown that they are absolutely impossible to cooperate with unless you agree with their POV. I ask any editors who agree/disagree to voice their opinions here, and might add that people have been topic banned for much less zealotry before. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you actually did a search for "KKK" in Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page article and decided that that page is acceptable--your own comment: "I see no 'slander'"--then I rest my case about you. You should not be editing articles here or threatening to ban people here. You are part of the problem and should be banned from Wikipedia. From my check you are not a reviewer or administration--yet you act like you are. I don't think you are acting responsibly and might not have the experience to enter this debate. If you had experience you would understand the Wikipedia rules about putting slanderous material in Biographies. But evidently you don't understand very much at all. All you have come here to do is to threaten me and ignore everything I say. Good luck on convincing the administrators and reviewers to ban me based on you weak arguments. Remove yourself from this talk and don't make yourself look any sillier because you do not impress anyone. I and other editors (including administration) will only feel really embarrassed by your continued arguments.--(Gharr (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, this sort of uncivil language is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Continue it and you will be blocked. lifebaka++ 04:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no administrator and I never claimed to be one. Topic bans are decided by community consensus, not by admin's whim, and I can only propose you to be banned, not ban you myself. Yet again, you provide no reason to ban me apart from disagreeing with you - on the other hand, my "weak" arguments include your absolutely unacceptable behaviour and your total inability to cooperate, as evidenced by this entire thread (especially unfounded accusations against other editors including Sloane and yours truly), so I don't think luck has anything to do with it. And, about the "slander", no, I still don't see any, and I won't even try to look for it anymore because 1. Talk pages are not bios and 2. Slander is not going to appear if I look hard enough. I await for other editors in favour of banning you from editing Venus Project. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To update people on the situation in what seems to be a thread that won't die, User:Gharr ([15],[16],[17]) is now engaged in an edit war with User:OpenFuture ([18], [19], [20]) at The Venus Project page. Despite User:Gharr his claim in his edit summary ("I offered to talk about this on Talk:The_Venus_Project"), he actually hasn't addressed this issue on the talk page, the only discussion is User:OpenFuture, another user and me agreeing that the original version is the best (most NPOV) version ([21]). Gharr's only contribution at the talk page on this subject is a 3rr warning directed at User:OpenFuture, who hasn't technically broken 3rr. Also, note that although User:Gharr is accusing me of hounding him, he seems to be holding some kind of weird log on his talk page about me and other users ([22], [23]) he's come into conflict with. --Sloane (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no administrator either. my judgement about you stands, you should be banned from this talk page User:Zakhalesh.--(Gharr (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I call unreasoned judgement bad judgement. Why should it be me, who has not attacked other editors with false allegations, has not behaved aggressively towards people trying to advise, has not edit warred, instead of you who have done all of these things in order to advance your POV? Zakhalesh (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gharr his edit warring has now been reported. [24] --Sloane (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Gharr's reply is mostly comprised of Ad Hominem (complete with yet another "hounding" accusation!), and Gharr's been warned about attacking other editors with unfounded allegations quite a few times already. I really hope the admin browsing through the report has the stamina to read through this thread as well, as it is here that we see who's hounding who. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fitting in

WP:BOOMERANG is vastly overused, but I'm afraid in this thread the only behavioral problem I see is on the part of User:Gharr, who does not display a temperment conducive to editing here. It's not impossible to contribute to Wikipedia with a chip on your shoulder and a pugnancious attitude – examples can be found of those who manage it, somehow – but it's certainly not the ideal way to approach a colloborative enterprise. If Gharr plans on continuing in this manner, I would suggest becoming very good at content creation, which appears to be the pathway to obtaining a license to be serially uncivil without suffering the consequences of one's words. He'd better hurry, though, because he appears to be digging a hole for himself pretty darn quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you support topic banning Gharr from editing Venus Project? I proposed that a few posts above, but haven't got any replies apart from the angry "no you should be banned" responses from Gharr. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's much too soon to be talking about topic banning -- that generally happens after a much longer and persistent history of disruption, which Gharr doesn't have. At this point, if he edit-wars he should get a time out, and if he continues with his attitude adjustment problem still unresolved, a perceptive admin might want to give him a bit of a respite from editing so that he can sort out his priorities and decide if this is really something he wants to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I based my proposal on a somewhat similar case a while ago which resulted in a topic ban for editor that put enormous effor into whitewashing Torsion fields and attacking editors who reverted these edits (some of this war was revdel'd but you'll find some in the page's history). However, if I recall correctly, that banned editor didn't only claim COI but also implied that the editors against his edits were a particular person and his collegues, so the outing factor could also apply. The banned editor also had a clear as vodka COI themselves, if I recall correctly, he a CEO in a company that attempted to sell some product related to torsion fields, which is a bit more severe than the followership implied by Gharr's blog. However, I still stick by my opinion that topic banning Gharr (unless he has some enlightenment on how to behave) would be appropriate, but if you feel that less significant means to prevent them from partisan editing are viable, I won't argue. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Gharr was blocked for 24 hours because of edit warring. May this thread finally rest in peace.--Sloane (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I read Gharr's request for unblock (in which he ironically wants this thread to stay) and since it is just another collection of personal attacks and unfounded accusations (including some against me who wasn't even in the edit war for which they were blocked), I've notified Lifebaka, the admin who recently warned Gharr about hostile behaviour, of this. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Anber Advertising

Anber's user page contains an advertisement for his law firm. It goes against the "Promotional and advocacy material and links" section of Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. As I expected, he completely ignored my notice on his talk page. CTJF83 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus, at least the first external link, if not the second CTJF83 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me, although it's very hard to describe any business' activities without at least one wikipedian thinking it spam. The text about university/political background seems even more positive to me - but folk don't complain about that. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How much more advertising can you get then, "I can be reached, 24hrs/day at 1-888-989-3946, or from jail at 613-755-4008"? CTJF83 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that last is a little egregious. I've removed the contact numbers per WP:NOTDIR item 3 (also WP:NOTWEBHOST item 1 and WP:NOTADVERTISING item 5). I don't see any real problem with the rest though. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok....the link to his law firm is borderline advertising...but I was mostly concerned with the phone numbers. CTJF83 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional (ie it's not in a section that says "For all your legal needs visit www.suegrabbitandrun.com"), I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene^talk 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. CTJF83 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Those links are still a little too ad-like for my tastes. I think they should be toned down further. It might be less of an issue for a very active editor or if the page was noindexed, but this isn't an SEO platform. I notice davidanber.com does use keyword-stuffed urls[25] and I think the high search placement of wikipedia pages (despite nofollow) creates a COI for anyone desiring web visibility. Anyway it would look less spammy if the formatting and wording was made a bit more understated. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I disagree that my phone numbers violates spirit or letter of wiki policy and I will be reverting back my space. Until/unless there is clear consensus to change it, or unless there is some kind of ruling, I would ask that you please not disturb my user page. Also, as a final point you guys should consider the bad faith motives of Ctjf83 in raising this. He and I have been major contributors disagreeing over a content issue (see our edit histories). It appears to be clearly bad fait to start nitpicking someone's talk page after such a contentious debate and this should reduce the weight of his contribution. Anber (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Including the IP, let me be number four in favor of removing the contact information, against your one. Is that consensus enough for you? Any ill regard Ctjf83 you think has for you, doesn't at all change the fact that this clear advertising should be removed.--Atlan (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Advertising is advertising, whether I have a dispute with the user, am good friends with them, or they are an IP or an admin. Also you don't need a consensus when you clearly violate policy, of which I linked you to 1 and EyeSerene linked you to 3. You just need to be blocked like your 2 cohorts on AVGN episodes, due to your continued disruption of Wikipedia. CTJF83 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, I think you should not be the one removing the information from his user page. There's no real urgency to the matter and whether we resolve it now or in a few hours doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's even close to borderline - it's advertising, plain and simple. Wikipedia does not exist for anyone's advertising benefit. The numbers should be removed. (Also, I know that the WMF is located in Florida, but if this advertising happens to contravene the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is there any chance we could get in trouble? Law societies in Canada often have strict rules about where and how lawyers can advertise.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough consensus for you? Take a look at WP:VAND, me removing advertisement is hardly vandalism. CTJF83 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Doc talk 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. I believe a link to your website and saying you're a lawyer is probably as far as it should go. Adding phone numbers, what law you practice, addresses, etc, etc. is plain and simple advertising and shouldn't be around. Just my .02 Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have once again removed the contact information, citing the consensus that has developed here that it was indeed unacceptable. I hope that will be the end of it, although let's leave this thread open for Anber to respond if he so wishes.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is consensus. My user page is not optimized to make it an effective advertisement at all. Anybody arriving at this page likely looked for me by name and therefore the phone numbers are relevant information. Just because it is not to some people's taste doesn't mean it violates the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there is a guideline, I believe that gives deference to user pages. Thirdly, this was started by Ctjf83. I have pointed out obvious bad faith in him doing this and I think this should be taken into consideration. I would like more input from the wikipedia community before my page is modified and I will ask you to respect this before arbitrarily deciding that's the decision. Anber (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." [26] Doc#1 is correct. One does not find phone numbers in an encyclopedia. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene had it right the first time: I was really just reiterating one of his main reasons listed above for deleting the numbers. There's simply no purpose to have those numbers except to advertise: why else on earth would they be there? WP:What Wikipedia is not is policy, Anber, and I for one cannot see consensus to remove the numbers changing no matter how much time passes (unless there are some changes to the policy). WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." So it actually does "violate the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy". With this revert you have technically violated another policy It applies to any page, including user pages. WP:UP#PROMO would mean that the second exemption of 3RR would not apply. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are getting community input, and the stuff on your page is outside community norms as you can probably find by comparing it with contact info on other user pages. If there's a link to your own site and your site has your phone number, there's no reason to put your phone number on wikipedia. There's also no reason for your advocacy blurb; it should be enough to say something like "I work as a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, Canada, and my web site is here" with your site instead of Wikipedia's. Anyway, why do you say anyone arriving at the page likely looked for you by name? That does seem to indicate an expectation that people are going to find your Wikipedia user page with off-wiki search engines, which creates reasons to want to optimize the page. The usual reason anyone should find your Wikipedia user page is because they're editing Wikipedia and they view the page for some reason related to your editing, rather than looking for you by name. People shouldn't care about off-wiki visibility of Wikipedia user pages at all, as I see it. And, I don't understand why you're so worked up about this if there is really no COI involved. I think Doc9871's points are well taken. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The repeated claims of "no consensus" are incorrect and starting to sound like WP:IDHT, and taken together with the reversions this is looking less and less like a good-faith error of judgement. Even if there wasn't a strong consensus in this thread (which there is), Wikipedia's policies are developed by consensus so the fact that there's a rule at all indicates consensus already exists. As I posted on Anber's talk page, our facilities are provided by charitable donation and maintained by volunteers; even giving the appearance of abusing these is very distasteful. Given the lack of cooperation on Anber's part I've added a noindex tag to their userpage to exclude it from appearing in search engine results; if as Anber claims the links and information are not on the page for advertising reasons, they shouldn't find this objectionable. I'd suggest that further intransigence will result in administrative sanctions on their account (frankly they're lucky not to be blocked already for edit warring). EyeSerene^talk 09:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that a similar argument concerning Anber's user page happened in 2007, which resulted in the page being deleted. So unless Anber is suffering from memory loss, he is well aware that the advertisement was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to Dynamic Legal Solutions? I've viewed the diffs; the article was blatant advertising and had to be deleted five times and eventually salted to prevent its repeated recreation. Given that, I think I'm justified in no longer assuming good faith. I've removed the spamlinks from Anber's userpage as well. The community does give some leeway in the matter of links on a userpage, but the important thing is not to take the piss. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his user page, which was deleted as advertising on June 19, 2007. But yes, there's also Dynamic Legal Solutions, and finally the David Anber article, which was deleted multiple times.--Atlan (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification (and sorry for my misunderstanding). Because the deletions are from a few years ago I feel they shouldn't unduly influence the current situation (many new users make mistakes), but as you note above they do serve to confirm that Anber can't plausibly claim to be unaware of consensus on using WP for self-promotion and advertising. Recreating a previously deleted userpage with similarly promotional content is also problematic. However, as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't restore the phone numbers and spam links (or anything similar) to Wikipedia there's no more admin action that needs to be taken at this time. I'd imagine they'll be cut very little slack if this becomes an issue for a third time though. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The debate from a few years ago was not a page created by me although I argued for it being kept. When the decision was not to keep it there was never a problem with me using my user page to describe who I am. I think you need to calm yourself down. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The noindex helps a lot. Is there a way to make sure it isn't removed? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now hold on a second, after reviewing the consensus I was prepared to accept the removal of the phone numbers but the url links are acceptable. There are other users who agreed with that as well. Please restore those. Anber (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, please unprotect my page. I am prepared to accept the remvoal of the phone numbers but I have other changes I'd like to make to my page. Anber (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there is no reason why my page, otherwise complying with policy needs a no follow code. This is not something done to user pages in general and this is unreasonably targeting my page. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to unprotect the page, this isn't an isolated incident. Anber likes to complain and revert until he gets his way. He should've been blocked for 3RR. CTJF83 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have never edited in bad faith and I accept the consensus over the phone numbers. I would like to make some other changes unrelated to this issue. Can an admin please assess this and unprotect my page; thanks. Anber (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given that your userpage has been deleted for advertising before, I hardly think "unreasonably targeting" is a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit protected to get it changed. I have lost all good faith in you after this and AVGN episodes. Users need to be held accountable for their actions and just unprotecting the page shows Anber that he doesn't have to follow policy, consensus, and can just complain til he gets his way. CTJF83 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: All pages in wikipedia already serve all external links with nofollow (this prevents the link targets from getting any page rank from the wikipedia page). You can see this with "view source" on any page. The tag added to Anber's userpage is noindex, which additionally prevents the userpage itself from being indexed. I don't see why Anber cares about this, and his complaining about it (and his concern over nofollow) diminishes his credibility that he's not trying to use Wikipedia as search magnet. FWIW, I have long supported noindexing all Wikipedia user pages (I'd actually go a lot further than that if it were up to me). Anber, if you were concerned about nofollow because you thought you were getting page rank from its absence up til now, maybe this will put your mind at ease. We've been using nofollow for years so you were already not getting that page rank. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Google "Anber". What pops up second on the list? I'm not surprised that it's his WP page, really. It's by design, and hasn't been buried... Doc talk 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you know nothing about SEO. I couldn't care less if anybody arrives at my user page by Googling my name. 1) because when they do that they get my own web page first and 2) because if they google my name, they already know who I am which means I don't need to advertise myself. Sometimes the stuff people say is lacking in a bit of common sense. If I had SEO'd this page, I'd have stuffed it with keywords making it likely to be indexed by people looking for lawyers in my area (which currently it does not rank). Anber (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. I guess the noindex hasn't taken effect yet and google still have an old cached version of the userpage; let's see after another day or so. I hadn't googled "Anber" but I'd tried "David Anber" during the discussion and got the WP userpage on the second Google result page, but more recently (last night) got it on the first page. It and "Anber" at that time showed the WP sub-headings as separate links in the google results, which I hadn't expected, and it really increased the hit's visibility, very effective. For some reason I don't see the extra links in the google result when I try now, so I wonder what changed. It also wouldn't surprise me if the section headings have extra weight computing SimRank between Anber's user page and other pages containing the legal terms in the headings, or otherwise figure into the TSPR that purportedly affects result ordering when people do multiple searches on such terms (like when they're looking around for a lawyer). Such concerns were part of why I suggested rewriting the sentence containing Anber's homepage extlink, to replace the legal keywords in the link text (that could associate with his url for sim-ranking) with a generic word like "here". (Plus, his version just looks spammy).

  Anyway, since Anber says he doesn't care if people find his user page by searching on his name and since it looks to me like his userpage layout is gaming the system, inserting the noindex tag as an administrative remedy seems fine to me and Anber should stop complaining about it. The page sure looks to me to have numerous optimization characteristics whether by coincidence or otherwise. FWIW, there's lots of other user pages in Category:Noindexed pages as well, though most of them seem to be tagged sock accounts. If Anber still thinks noindexing his user page is inequitable treatment, I'll be happy to support any proposal he might make to noindex all user pages per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FAKEARTICLE would seem to apply here. WP:MFD anyone? N419BH 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anber will be pleasantly shocked I'm gonna say this...but no to MfD, as long as he doesn't have a phone number and it isn't overly promotional, there is no real problem. CTJF83 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I must disagree; this page violates multiple points mentioned in WP:FAKEARTICLE, and has been on our servers since 2007. This either needs to be moved into mainspace and turned into a referenced BLP or it needs to be deleted. N419BH 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What would cause him to meet GNG? It was deleted as a page once, nom it for MfD, and let the community decide CTJF83 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Can we bring this to a conclusion. I'll remove the numbers as originally asked, we'll leave no index tag and let's move on. I'd like to be able to edit my user page again. Anber (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm going to be incommunicado for a few days. If any other admin wishes to close this up (and reverse any of my actions in the process) then please feel free to do so :) Consensus seems to be that the status quo (contact numbers and links removed, noindex tag added) is fine; I'd note that Anber has agreed to leave the contact numbers out. However, others may not feel this goes far enough towards an undertaking to fully comply with policy including the use of self-promotional prose, layout and links. As a final note, the page protection is set to expire tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I feel EyeSerene's actions are perfect considering everything that has transpired. Anber has agreed to keep a few things off the page, and once the page protection is up and if he complies with keeping those things off his page, I see no reason why we can't continue on with our Wiki-lives. I'd really like to believe a professional business-person like David Anber is willing to keep his word and leave the objectionable material off his user page. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. In the meantime, as a courtesy, would you guys agree for me to strike my first name from several instances in this discussion. The irony is that when googled my user page will no longer show up (which, honestly, doesn't bother me all that much) but I would prefer if this thread wasn't a high ranking result (which it might be). Remember guys, my practice is how I put food on my table.Anber (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are mixing work and Wikipedia then....To me that shows you are using Wikipedia for advertisement. CTJF83 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You'd have to have them rev-deleted by an admin if you really didn't want them to show up, as simply striking them won't make them go away. Doc talk 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more obvious Anber is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and probably needs to be blocked. Him worrying about Google linking to this as opposed to his userpage took away any last bit of good faith I gave to him CTJF83 06:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Man, you got what you wanted with the AVGN thread, you got what you wanted with my user page, I know my web stats for my website support that I never got much if any traffic inbound from Wikipedia. Why can't you just be reasonable. I'd like to purge my first name from this debate - is there really an objection to that? Anber (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet you add the external spam links that were removed once again.[27] I was starting to feel sorry for you and recommend a WP:CLEANSTART, but you are just defying consensus here. Doc talk 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How does this defy consensus - numbers were removed and the no index was kept - the overall mood of the conversation (aside from a few people) was not to remove the links 70.26.42.104 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Your epidermis is showing" - the IP is visible. An admin removed the links, and not one editor disagreed with that move even after he said he'd have no problem being reversed. Consensus was thus seemingly maintained with the link-removal-addendum. And as soon as protection expired they went up straight away. To some it would seem "defiant", especially with the prior reverts and all, but apparently it's not a huge deal. Doc talk 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the same routine as over 3 years ago:

Anber advertises himself; People disagree; A discussion ensues; The discussion does not go Anber's way; Anber requests his name stricken from all records.

It didn't work 3 years ago, so again it seems Anber suffers from memory loss by going through this exact same routine again. Anyway, this page is not indexed by search engines I believe, so the point is moot.--Atlan (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one attorney I won't look up should I find myself in an Ottawa courtroom, charged with a variety of crimes. Again, that is. ;> Doc talk 09:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Anber, ANI and all similar noticeboards are noindexed and won't appear in google search results (they will still show up in wikipedia's internal search function). Also, pages in edit histories are noindexed and won't show up in either google or wikipedia search, so revdel isn't needed just to get something out of search. Redacting it by normal editing is enough, and revdel is usually only used for stuff that's really private. There are ways to search edit histories but they are cumbersome and involve special tools. I notice you had some concerns in 2007[28] about unwanted wikipedia content showing up on googling you. I'm presuming those are resolved by now, but if not, we should try to take care of them somehow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points as always :> But, oh, those pesky mirror sites. It's best just to not even try it, only then to regret it later... Doc talk 09:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we just block him and get it over with? It's obvious he isn't here to be a constructive part of Wikipedia. He is here to sell himself. CTJF83 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your suggestion that I be blocked is completely without merit. I have contributed constructively as a part of Wikipedia. After the previous debate several years ago, I was led to believe that I could have some flexibility with my own talk page. You have taken an absolutely toxic attitude towards me in this debate and in the previous debate and the weight of your rediculous suggestion will be treated accordingly. You just need to look to the avgn debate where, despite me coming out on the losing side, the editor who closed the debate pointed out that my contribution (the extensive summary of everyone's position) was useful to him. Let me tell you something, I got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction of contributing something to the debate on that topic. You're obviously a bitter person. I've given up on that topic and I've given in to your requests on my user page. A truly honourable person would call it a day; which comes as no surprise to me that you are not doing so, but making frivolous requests to have me blocked. Anber (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at his user page. It's not a user page, it's a resumé. Whether he gets blocked or not, an admin should wipe the contents of the user page and replace it with "This is my user page", or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, I wanted to add (this will likely be my last submission on this topic), I believe that my user page currently conforms to the consensus for what is reasonable for a user page. With respect to the links, I cite the following contributors:

• It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me (bobrayner)

• We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional [...], I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene

In response to the above, CTJF83 wrote:

• Fair enough

This whole thing was started to remove my numbers, which I have agreed to and to respond to 'advertising' concerns, my page has been no indexed, which I have agreed to. At this point, there are 4 external links to the 4 areas of my personal life which I have delved into, I am content that they stay and in light of the comments above, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Anber (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you use me both as a bashing tool and to further your agenda....CTJF83 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And now a Canadian IP, for their first ever edit, has restored the links. Cute. Doc talk 22:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Now reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is an admin to block Anber and protect the page...for being an ADMIN noticeboard, I'm not seeing too many of them. CTJF83 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV is getting backlogged too. They must all be watching the NCAA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Anber has once again restored the links, I must agree with EyeSerene, CTJF83, N419BH, and Baseball Bugs (and others) that at the very minimum the links should stay out. This is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation at this point, seriously. More severe measures might be appropriate, and I would support them as well after his going on like this. Doc talk 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could find an admin to be more active/proactive in this discussion, again...for being an admin noticeboard, they are lacking significantly in this discussion. CTJF83 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the lot of us will get "combat promotions". Not. ;> Doc talk 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with what has already been said above. I think this page is a violation of multiple policies. Since the user keeps adding links back in that have been stated above should not be there makes this thread unresolved. The user page reads like a resume'. Reading the user page and esp. the user's talk page, I think this user has a bad case of I didn't hear that. I also find very concerning that this has been discussed in the past with the same kind of results. I think now we need to find an administrator that is active to act upon what the community is saying in this thread. If no administrator is found than I recommend to the editors here that someone should nominate his page for MFD which is probably a better solution. If the page is MFD and it ends with deletion it will make it much harder for this user to return the information that is unacceptable. I guess I am saying that an MFD is probably the best solution to this problem. Just my 2 cents, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• When this debate started the only problem was the phone numbers. There were several people who indicated that the links were borderline but okay. The reason they were okay is because I say a few things about myself, and then put a link at the bottom to those aspects of things which I discussed. It follows an encyclopedic format, and -- assuming the rest of my page isn`t overly promotional -- it is okay.

SINCE that moment, there was a sense that my page was trying to be used promotionally for search engine optimization. As a result a noindex link was placed. This in my mind, only strengthens my argument that the page is acceptable with the links. This is conensus of a number of users (at least 3 experienced editors, an IP or 2, and myself).

SINCE then, there have been a nuber of users who have come on and said otherwise. I don`t understand how they can claim the page as it exists now is a violation, but they take that position. I do not agree that this overwhelms the old consensus, however their comments are duly noted.

IF an impartial administrator is willing to review the entire discussion and conclude that the consensus is that links must go, I will abide by that result 100% and remove the links and not appeal that decision or revert it back at any point in the future.

UNTIL this happens, I will leave my links there as this was not the purpose of this ANI thread and there is consensus from the very people who started this thread that the links were ok. Anber (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe we're still discussing this. I am not an admin, but I've taken another look at Anber's page and I honestly don't see a problem with it as it is currently. I won't claim to know any of Anber's previous activities or past indescretions on Wikipedia, but I feel that makes me a lot more objective in this situation. Considering the noindex tag to keep him from using this page as free Google advertising, and the removal of his phone numbers, what's left is a bunch of information Anber plans on sharing with the rest of the wiki community as far as I can see. People can choose to visit his links or not. As I already stated, as long as the phone numbers remain removed and the page doesn't read like an advert for his law office (which it currently does not), I don't see what the problem is here any longer. Whatever he's done before, Anber has been rather conformist in what he's been asked to do thus far. I just think this discussion has gone on long enough. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over one's own user page typically IS a sign of trouble. There have been plenty of words here. It's time for an admin to either shut it down or shut this discussion down, or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anber was blocked for a week, just as I posted the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little bummed to hear that. I felt Anber was willing to make some concessions to his page and we in turn should have made some for him as well. Oh well, c'est la vie. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The page still reads like a resume. It might help if he would change those links' descriptions to something like simply, "My home page". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Block Reasoning

As people have noticed, i blocked Anber for a week for disruptive editing, and seeing the situation surrounding the block i believe that it is best if i post a rationale for doing so. First and foremost i must mention that I am not really against the links in question; If they violate a rule at all the violation is quite minor anyway, and they are not beyond what i call intolerable on a user page. The links are, however, not the block reason. The block itself is based upon the constant edit warring and insistence to retain the promotional bits - first by edit warring with eyeserene and CKatz, Which resulted in a full protection on the page, and afterwards by reinserting the links a total of three times the instant the protection got dropped.

I tried to message Anber after denying a page protection and a block request regarding Anber posted on my talk page, advising him to steer clear from any promotional bits (At least until the case was marked resolved and a final consensus was reached). Instead, the link was re-added twice which, when combined with the earlier edit warring and the in-progress ANI thread status, was beyond what i found justifiable as non disruptive.

I'd note that any admin may alter or undo the block without prior discussion if they feel it is incorrect, to harsh or otherwise no longer requires. I will not consider this to be wheel-warring, and frankly, i welcome a better solution then a plain block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have declined an unblock request with a note that I read the above discussion as representing clear consensus that Anber may not misuse his user page for advertising.  Sandstein  21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The block is ok. I left some advice about an unblock approach. I agree with those who say that CTJF83 should stop calling for remedies at this point, as it's coming across as hounding. Anything further CTJF83 brings to this should be issues we don't already know about, backed with diffs. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User has put a proposed new version of userpage on his talk page, still containing a spammy reference to his legal advertising company. The guy has contributed 65 edits to mainspace,[29] none of them substantial as far as I've looked, and I'm feeling like we've spent way too much time on this already. Rather than having us engage in yet more protracted discussions/negotiations about his userpage content, I'm inclined to propose just salting his userpage and letting him decide whether he wants to edit articles or not under those conditions. He is certainly not obligated. I've tried to discuss things on his user talk; I'm open to feedback from others about whether my posts to him were reasonable. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite the user's denials, and given all the wikilawyering, it's pretty clear that his main focus here is self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC).
• Looks fine to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Noleander of anti-Semitic editing

Unresolved

Topic ban conversation and surrounding issues moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander per request at WP:AN. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

ArbCom

I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion when the time comes, along with an opinion as to whether there's sufficient consensus for a topic ban. If there isn't, I suggest we take this straight to ArbCom. Taking it to a user RfC is likely to attract the same people who commented here, possibly with the same opinions. I see the case for a topic ban as pretty straightforward, but the clarity of the case seems to be getting lost amid the number of opinions being expressed; and perhaps there's too much reading to expect people to do. This is the kind of situation ArbCom handles well.

By suggesting this, I'm not trying to cut short or bypass this discussion. I'm still hopeful that an uninvolved admin will see sufficient consensus and strong-enough arguments for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just spent two hours examining one of the charges against Noleander, I found that the case was far from being as straightforward as SlimVirgin claims; in the instance I examined, the Anti-Defamation League's own publication provides a clear justification for an article title for which Noleander was denounced.

I examined only one point of the evidence, and more than a dozen have been posted. Given the serious nature of the charge against Noleander, I hope that a closing admin will accept the need for more detailed scrutiny of rest of the evidence.

At this point, I suggest that the matter should go to straight to Arbcom, which provides a structured format for presenting and scrutinising evidence, as well as a neutral assessment of it. I also hope that Arbcom will consider some of the issues of conduct which have arisen in the course of this discussion, such as the allegations of anti-semitism which have been made at those who have expressed concerns at the way the matter was being addressed at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. --JN466 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch

Unresolved

Incidents of WP:HOUND:

• 1st diff: [30]
• 2nd diff: [31]
• 3rd diff: [32]
• 4th diff: [33]

User:GoetheFromm and I were engaged in a dispute at Miral, subsequent to which the user reverted my edit at Hind Husseini here, without addressing the reasons I articulated in the Discussion page for the edit. Then User:GoetheFromm partially reverted my edit at Mayors for Peace here, again with no accompanying explanation in the Discussion page. Then User:GoetheFromm made a minor edit at Nahum Barnea here, and then reverted an edit by another user at Victoria Affair here. It should be noted that User:GoetheFromm had never edited those pages before and I suspect his sole reason for doing so was to aggravate an already tense situation and provoke me into edit warring.—Biosketch (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please look into and address Biosketch's behavior!

Starting yesterday, I have had interactions and accusations with Biosketch that have increasingly become more uncivil and false.

First, Biosketch disagrees with edits on the Miral page, a genre (the Israeli-Palestinian confllict) that I have no vested interested in, other than to insure the inclusion of useful information on the film Miral. i brought up my edits to the Miral talk page and followed protocol on the edits.

He then reports me (without informing me) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, with accusations that I violated 3RR. This doesn't fly on the page and it is ruled as a non-vio.

In his reports at the Edit Warring notice boards, he directly refers to me as "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite." Other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" have been used openly by BioSketch. Despite my numerous warnings on that page that his language and tone is a violation of wiki standards, he remains unapologetic and in fact seems to be amping up his rhetoric. I brought up his behavior at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F and the investigation is pending.

BioSketch has has been warned about his uncivil behavior. See here: User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I also addressed his accusations that my edits to other pages were not explained, providing the original explanation that I had given and an updated explanation.

Now, Biosketch has brought me up on this page, citing WP:HOUND, in what I believe is a retaliatory action that has no merit. If you look at the edits brought up by Biosketch that purportedly indicate hounding, one will see that my edits were constructive and well within boundary. It has been my experience, as well as other users i am sure, to bounce off of other users' contributions and make edits. A great many users and admins have done so with my contributions.

Interestingly, user Biosketch and Plot Spoiler seems to equate their edits as if they were one person. They also curiously have similar edits on the same pages. In addition, both users have a history of edit warring and warnings in the past, indicating a past inability to work with those they perceive as interfering.

I believe that all of my points can be corroborated based on what I mentioned and what has been bought up by BioSketch. Thanks for your help, GoetheFromm (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In as much as any of the above is even true, it does not alter the fact that edits were made by the user in rapid succession at FOUR articles to which I had recently contributed and with which the user had never expressed the slightest interest as an editor. Given the context of the four edits, i.e. the editing dispute at Miral that preceded them, the pattern is consistent with the the formal definition of Wikihounding as articulated at WP:HOUND: "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."—Biosketch (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch, you've already been warned just a day ago on your talkpage about WP:CIVIL with regards to the manner that you've handled issues.User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 I'll reiterate that I believe that you are misusing this noticeboard and misrepresenting trying to create controversy. Please see comments directly above that address your allegations. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring conduct perceived as being inappropriate to AN/I is not uncivil. That is what the noticeboard is for. I would appreciate if you allowed the Admins to calmly examine the case and determine for themselves whether the diffs cited constitute WP:HOUND.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@BioSketch: The admins will certainly calmly examine the case, that is irrespective of either you or me. Your uncivil behavior towards me, however, has been really a downer in editing and I really don't appreciate it. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My uncivil behavior where? What are you talking about? And what does "uncivil behavior" have to do with editing four articles where I had recently contributed that never interested you before?—Biosketch (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this seems to be going in circles. You were already warned about uncivil behavior on your talk page and on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F and now you are denying it. And I'll reiterate that I believe you are misusing this noticeboard for retaliatory reasons. GoetheFromm (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That uncivil behavior was at AN3 and doesn't have anything to do with this incident. I have restricted my comments here to being exclusively about the diffs and not about you and would appreciate if you would kindly regard me with the same courtesy. Thank you.—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, THIS NEEDS TO STOP. You've now filed another report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts trying a different angle on a different noticeboard. As I've done in every instance, I've addressed you point-by-point. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin noticeboards exist so that Wikipedia contributors can turn to Admins when they feel their own efforts at resolving a dispute are not working. Every contributor against whom a charge has been brought at AN certainly has the right to defend themselves, and it is even expected they will do so; however, it is not okay to turn a contributor's charge at AN against them and make them its victim – which is what is happening here. It interferes with the evaluation process, intimidates the user making the charge by putting him on the defensive – and defeats the AN's very purpose. If there is a reasonable explanation for the four diffs above, it is sufficient to state it once clearly. If an Admin is convinced the diffs are inconsequential, he'll dismiss the charge and that'll be the end of it. But there was never an opportunity for that to happen here. From the moment the diffs were listed, the discussion became not about them but about Biosketch. This is not the place to discuss grievances against Biosketch. It is the place to discuss the diffs.—Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs have been addressed quite thoroughly. My position is that I believe that your behavior is simply retaliatory, especially in the manner in which you've been warned about being civil and the what seems to be noticeboard shopping. Your overall approach has been very difficult for me as an editor, it really grates my skin and I DO think it is unfair. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, comments like "V for victim" in the edit summary of your last edit on this page is another example of what feels to me to be uncivil behavior and an example of emotionality in your approach to me. I've cut and pasted where and when this happened.: 12:21, 2011 March 28 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch: V for Victim.) This is a request that you refrain from doing this as well. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely regret that you are experiencing anxiety over this. That was not my intention at all. My reason for alerting AN/I was never to retaliate but to seek input from an Admin on what I perceived to be a violation of Wikipedia policy against me. Remember that the Admin at EW dismissed my charge because there was no violation of RR3. That was fine and it doesn't even matter to me at this point. But the EW Admin did not read the body of my message because of its excessive length, and the charge being made here was in that message. So there is nothing new, nothing retaliatory in this Incident – it has just been relocated to its appropriate forum from where it was originally.

And about the "V for victim" edit summary, I'm not sure how it could be considered uncivil. But in the event that you took it as an emotional outburst directed against you, then I can assure you that it was just the first thing that came to my mind when I had to fill in the summary box, and there was never any hostile intent behind it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology on this matter. These incidents have spanned over 4 different sections on 3 different noticeboards and, as you have stated, have taken on excessive lengths. I am sure that you realize now that it is very common for editors to "spring off" of other editors' contributions to make useful contributions of their own. If you felt that there was something awry, then you could've use my talk page to discuss with me. I would've been happy to oblige (as I indicated on your talkpage). I request that you extend that courtesy to me next time, instead of us getting mired on noticeboards. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD abuse

Is there any way we can tighten the PROD procedures? They are becoming a back door way to avoid the scrutiny supplied by an AFD. A PROD was designed to remove rubbish, but as more people have discovered the process, it is becoming a way to avoid the scrutiny of an AFD to delete what you do not like. Please look at Ruggles Prize PRODed by User:RGTraynor. I only noticed it because I had scrolled way down my list that it had become a red link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

First article I ever wrote got PROD'ed and deleted while I was away from Wikipedia. Pretty irritating. Then again, it's easy enough to get a PROD'ed article restored. Why do you think this particular PROD was abusive? 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather curious myself. For one thing, perhaps you're unfamiliar with WP:PROD. There is nothing in the policy mentioning, or discussing, "rubbish." The lead text is "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion." To imply that no user can file a PROD except out of malice and/or sloth is a poor way to uphold AGF. For my part, I presume that people filing PRODs do so on articles the deletion of which they genuinely do believe would prove uncontroversial, and that they apply this to articles they find fail of notability or sourcing in one fashion or another. I'm sure you would yourself prefer to be treated as if you didn't have ulterior motives or hidden agendas in your own edits.

For another, were you more familiar with PROD, instead of running to the admin who deleted the expired PROD and get him to reverse it, you would have done so through WP:UND, the proper avenue for attempting to reverse a deleted PROD.

Finally, if your purpose is to tighten up the PROD procedures, what are you doing here on the admin noticeboard? WP:PROD has a talk page, and that is the proper venue to discuss changes to the policy. Wouldn't you think?  RGTraynor  05:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking." So going to the deleting admin is totally appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I find PROD a great process because it doesn't allow deleting rubbish in the case that any single Wikipedia user disagrees. No bureucracy, no extra rules - just "I think this should be deleted because..." and "Well I think that's a lousy reason to delete this." It's like AfD where a single keep !vote is enough to keep the article - until AfD that is. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Screaming abuse when it's used exactly the way it's supposed to be is odd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. PROD doesn't mean avoiding scrutiny, it's a softer version of DB that anyone can contest if they disagree. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• If anything, the Prod process needs to be tightened in the opposite direction of what Norton suggests. Tags shouldn't be removed willy-nilly without a valid reason or doing anything to address the reason it was prodded in the first place. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. PRODs are mostly used in good faith to maintain the encyclopedia; messing with or obstructing that process for no good reason should be discouraged. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Never mind that Norton gave no reason for removing the PROD other than he thinks it should be at AfD instead, which strikes me as rather pointy. Certainly, if it has indeed been on his watchlist, he has made no improvements, nor attempted to provide reliable sources discussing it in the "significant detail" required, nor made any stab at defending the subject's notability.  RGTraynor  02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Not surprised. Prod removals should need a reason, because this nonsense is allowed otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit divided on this one. People who contest PROD don't always provide rationale for that, and it angers me a bit when they don't. However, one of the reasons I love PROD is that it has no special criteria to observe, and if we restrict contesting to those who can provide reason for removing the PROD, then there must be acceptable reasons and bad reasons. And if the line between these two must be drawn, guidelines are needed and someone neutral is needed to make the decision on whether the reason was bad enough to warrant restoration of the PROD. And if all this is implemented, PROD is no longer the nimble process for no-frills deletion, but just AfD where things are done differently. PROD is good the way it is. If the contester can't reason for keeping the article, well, that's only their loss when it goes to AfD. Zakhalesh (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• And ... there's the AfD Norton fought to see filed. I'm positively eager to see upon what grounds he defends the article's notability.  RGTraynor  11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• What I never understood is why some editors act so put out and bewildered when their PRODs are removed by an article's creator or primary editor. I mean DUH, if someone came to me and told me that he was going to take away something that I worked hard on and/or cared about unless I tell them not to then dammit I'm going to tell them not to. Why is this so hard for people to understand? This is why if I see an article that I think needs deleted, I'll go straight to AFD if it has recent edit activity. PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about. (though that in itself is not a deletion rationale) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  What I never understand is why certain notorious contributors to WP's eternal notability war keep heading back to the boomerang shop for more ammunition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Norton caused this to be undeleted, for some unknown reason, and then came here with claims of abuse of the PROD. If you're going to do this, why not express the reason at the AfD page. This sounds more like a way to be anti-PROD than anything else. That said, the PROD process does seem to as if it could be improved, and the Admin who undeleted this article had several suggestions to make it better User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize. But asking for a reversal of PROD without any reason sounds as bad as the condemnation of PROD itself. (filed under Automated-Time-Wasters) -- Avanu (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I would like the documentation on prods made a bit clearer. I tagged a couple of articles for a prod, waited a week to see if they were deleted, then came here, perhaps impatiently, to "demand" their deletion... I thought I was doing the right thing but clearly wasn't.... could someone look into stopping people like me in the future :D

Oh, and while I'm at it, the process for nominating an article for AFD atm is ridiculously laborious, and also mistake prone for the careless (read the edit summaries of my recent contributions - I copied and pasted without realising I needed to edit the darn things till it was too late, and you can't edit an edit summary! (maybe we should make it so you can edit an edit summary, although this maybe leads to infinite recursion...)). I appreciate it couldn't be built into mediawiki easily so... how about having a bot to do it? You could go to a specific page monitored by the bot, type the article and the reason for deletion, and the bot would do the rest. Should be a piece of piss for any decent progammer! Egg Centric 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One word - Twinkle. It does AfD simply by menu - just click, type your reason, and it does it all for you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DOH! And I already have Twinkle as well, just didn't know about the functionality! Cheers Bud :) Egg Centric 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD duration?

While I, as I said in my previous comments, like PROD and find it very useful, I've seen quite a lot of articles getting deleted within hours of getting PRODded. Not only cases that are eligible for speedy or have been previously deleted via XfD, but other articles as well. A common scenario seems to be not notable article that is outside the scope of CSD A7. I'm a bit confused on this one - should A7 be expanded to cover a wider range of topics so they get speedied instead of prematurely deleted after PRODding or the "grace period" before PROD deletion reduced, or should we retain the current time period and not let admins rush in before it has passed? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are specific areas where CSD should be expanded then so be it, but PROD is specifically designed for areas where a) the subjetc matter isn't obviously a speedy candidate and b) nobody cares enough that it can go seven days without anyone arguing against deletion. Admins shouldn't be violating that at will, just as inclusionists should not be hovering over category: proposed deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I too agree that policy shouldn't be violated, but on the other hand, policies change. I still think a few hours grace period is way too short, but that some hopeless articles just amange to get through speedy too easily. Events, for example. There cwas an article about some scavenger hunt held by citizens of a county. I couldn't find any hits on Google, sources listed by the creator were two specific citizens, the tone was off, but still, it couldn't be deleted by A7 because it doesn't cover events. Another case today was an article about a book that got "speedy prodded" possibly by error - the deletion was accompanied by the reasons of lacking notability (even though books aren't eligible under A7) and previous AfD that was actually speedy closed because the author deleted the article. I didn't contact the admins behind these because I wanted them gone as well, but I would still like some way to prevent actual PROD abuse, or a policy change that increases scope of A7 and other criteria. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is there so that we don't need to carry complete no-brainers (pure vandalism, serious attacks, articles with utterly no context with which to evaluate them) around for that whole time; things which don't fit that category but which are still useless will be easily picked up by PROD. So long as we don't have editors reflexively removing PRODs from article they wouldn't otherwise be interested in for ideological reasons, PROD works fine in removing inappropriate content which is not total garbage. As I say, I'm more than happy for discussion over whether we can wipe out more rubbish through CSD if we can agree on extensions to the existing criteria. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. PROD is great the way it is, but admins are taking too much liberty when deleting articles after they've been PRODded - mainly, deleting way too fast, as the policy clearly states that 7 days should be waited instead of just a few hours. This seems to happen quite often when the concern is notability, while CSD puts strict limits on what subjects may be speedied per notability, and PRODded articles are usually outside these limits. Examples include non-notable events, gameguides and fiction. The question is whether they should be speedyable via the actual speedy deletion process, deleted by an accelerated PROD with grace period of 1 day or less instead of a week, or should the admins have the patience to wait 7 days. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My appreciation that that point was apparently lost somewhere in my pre-post editing. :) I agree that PROD should have a strict seven-day duration, and that I don't see any reason for admins to circumvent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that. What if somebody created an attack page and a cohort of theirs sticks a PROD on it to keep it around for seven days? Speedy deletion criteria are specific. Even if a PROD is on an article, if the article should have had a db tag on it instead of a PROD, then the speedy criteria should be applied whether there's a PROD on it or not. Corvus cornix_talk 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In that instance, remove the PROD tag and apply a CSD instead. That has no bearing on how long a PROD lasts for. GiantSnowman 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the deletion templates are mutually exclusive (and in the situation you describe, WP:COMMONSENSE would apply as well). PROD/AfD does not mean that it can't be speedied, and in fact, speedy deletion is not uncommon in AfD discussions as people more experienced/deletionist note that the page meets the DB criteria. But, if an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, it should not be speedy deleted - 7 days grace until decided otherwise. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the issue is something that doesn't match an existing criteria, but really needs to be deleted right now, we still have {{db|some reason}} (and various redirects). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

An incident for resolution

Resolved

 – No tool use needed except "the power of reason", which is outside the scope of AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in an incident I would like to have answered without ambiguity. This edit served destructive to my comprise upon seeing it. I can demonstrate that it was an unprovoked response, and that it had potential to negatively impact my good character, although not based on fact. My first attempt, and preferred venue, was to discuss on the users talk page to hopefully reach clarity. I did post this message in hopes of a reply. I also posted this comment to mark my objection.

During the interim I discussed some things with a user I have great respect for their opinion. Their good counsel, along with points I enunciated, well summarize the motivation for my bringing this matter here. Considering this discussion can give proper insight to context. When Townlake did reply, the answer left no regards to consider. Unless the lack of regard should be sufficient in itself. So I bring the question here, where I trust the best answer can be known. Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable. And should a statement with such potential be retracted? I answer no and yes respectively. My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no attack in that edit, but a comment on a debate about process in which your RfA was first brought up by others and the user was noting he thought it was a poor choice for reasons he stated. It was civil and germane to a policy discussion. His 'noted' response to your comment is likewise civil. What I do see is your statement "Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable", which seems borderline WP:NLT territory. -- ۩ Mask 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Strat was as pugnacious as it gets at RFA" is very appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But pugnacious is not an insult, its a commonly used descriptive. Just this week the Financial Times and the Guardian have both used it in news, not opinion coverage. It describes a fighter, feisty, not willing to back down. These are things some are proud of, others dislike, and nobody claims is abusive. -- ۩ Mask 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)c

Just realized 'appropriate' could have a second meaning, so if i addressed the wrong one I'll point out that a long discussion of fixing RfA was set off with Strat's RfA as an example of one that should have passed. If the user disagrees with that central premise I'd expect him to address it in a way thats not a personal attack by still explains why they think this is incorrect. The user described, in neutral terms, what he had issues with in that regard. And then moved on. -- ۩ Mask 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)My76Strat, in regards to your "encroaches on liable" statement above, please choose your words carefully, especially when dealing with issues such as these. I'm sickened to see all of the jabs taken at your writing, which I find a refreshing divergence from the usual writing styles I see here. I find it to make prolific use of metaphors, which many don't feel like decoding or simply don't make the same connection as you. That being said, the first diff you link, [34], can be interpreted in two ways. AKMask provides one view directly above. However, upon my first reading it, I found it to be insensitive and therefore having the potential to be found offensive. Saying "Jimbo sacrificed a little credibility" by using your RfA as an example for how the process was broken shows that Townlake didn't take your well-being into consideration in that edit. He goes on to state reasons for why he thinks it was justifiable that your RfA did not pass (stating his opinion on your handling of the RfA which in turn led him to interpret your character in that event not fit for adminship) and uses that reasoning to prove his first point on why Jimbo picking your RfA as evidence for the process being broken was not a good choice. However, in the process, he said you were "as pugnacious as it gets" as well as "obvious temperament" which demonstrates gross insensitivity. Whatever opinions one may hold on a matter, statements like those are not going to cut it.

Because we are restrained (I could go further and say "cursed") to communicating in text, many if not all of our intended feelings are often lost in the stages of typing and saving an edit, which is then read and interpreted at face value by the reader. The same can be said to Townlake's second, curt response, "Noted". This was also a poor decision on Townlake's part, which was insensitive at the least and intentionally hurtful at the most. He could have diffused the situation by (sensitively) explaining the edit in question, thereby allaying any fears My76Strat may have had about his intentions when he posted the comment on Jimbo's talk page. Instead, he left much to be desired. I echo RexxS's response to the conversation on his talk page linked above.

I have tried to explain this unambiguously while not elaborating in excessive length; if you would like further clarification, please ask. In conclusion, I urge you, My76Strat, to not take every potentially negative comment personally. It wears you out and doesn't help you in real life, which is more important than the wild place that is the internet. However, this isn't the first time I've seen comments from Townlake that have been insensitive in nature. I urge you, Townlake, to consider others' feelings (yep, we're [well, most of us at least] human editors that have feelings—yes, feeelings!) when posting comments on others. It's basic etiquette that can be easily forgotten and ignored and must be adhered to particularly closely on the internet where text allows for broader interpretation. Airplaneman ✈ 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat, please clarify: What admin action are you requesting?

Alternatively: If - upon reconsideration, and particularly re. the notice at the top here, "Are you in the right place?" - if you decide another venue is more appropriate, please state that here. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stopping by to note I'm aware of this thread. I've stricken the comment, and I see no benefit to discussing this "incident" further. If y'all feel like punishing me, I guess go for it. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in seeing anyone punished. I would have preferred to resolve this matter on the talk page where I did make an attempt. And perhaps a lessor venue such as RfC could have been better. My only interest is to mark the effects as they occurred to me. And I think it is well worth noting that my RfA was never mentioned as an example until Townlake made the comparison. Otherwise it was merely focusing on a comment Jimbo had made "RfA is a horrible and broken process" which happened to be posted to my talk page. Never was there a foundation that my RfA was to serve as an example for any purpose. Until Townlake chose to advise against the dangers of lost credibility for the slightest alignment with my name. And to then present as fact, "Strat was" instead of "to me Strat was" as well as the fights I was said to pick. I just felt it was an offensive that professional conduct would not warrant. And I did notice the comment was stricken within short order of filing this ANI which almost gave me cause to withdraw it all together. The reason I decided to allow it to go forward, to hear these good replies based on policy and reasoned empathy, is because the retraction itself states a desire to avoid drama without giving indication as to proper conduct, and correcting an error. I am otherwise fully satisfied with the manner which this ANI has addressed the incident, and in full agreement that its purpose can be said to have been served. And I thank, wholeheartedly, those who have given of their time to provide valuable insight with their comments. I am very appreciative. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To further clarify, I had overlooked the link to resolve issues of civility which indicate WP:WQA as a better venue. And I did intend with choosing "encroaching" to avoid any appearance of of a threat. To the extent my actions are not congruent with my intentions, I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse that I wish to clarify this additional item. The result of my RfA was never an issue! There exists no platform, explicit or inferred, that it should have passed! The only issue raised is whether or not failing to achieve the criteria for success at RfA has any benefit by diminishing the value of the "person" who had tried. These are the very points being discussed under the thread. How could that context be sufficient to invite such a comment as Townlake was moved to append? And how could, not drawing a clear answer be looked upon as an option? These are the feelings which motivated me to ask for this single incident to be answered. Thanks for also considering these. My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The result of my RfA was never an issue! This is simply factually incorrect. The first post in the section contains, in prominence, a link to Jimbo commenting about your RfA, speaking about why the result is a problem and what RfA is now. -- ۩ Mask 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The prominent result, was a misconception that my value as a contributor was diminished. Not that the RfA had reached the "wrong result". The wrongs that intend to be considered are those which relate to humiliating a candidate for having tried. There simply is no reflection that I should have emerged as SYSOP. Only repeated sentiment that the destructive tendencies had no place. I suggest further that the comment from Townlake is an extension of punitive intent related solely to an attempt at RfA, I had endeavored.

When considering the negative innuendo that might contribute to the loss of an otherwise good contributor, is it impossible not to see that, exactly, this kind of conduct can contribute. Furthermore it is not unreasonable to expect the participants at RfA should be held exemplary in all regards. I approached the RfA as an encounter with an element functioning as cadre to the institutional purpose, which was to identify the kinds of people who could best serve the position being considered. I expected to return to a position of respect with regard to all manners of forward conduct, without accusations based upon RfA interactions. I have in fact interacted with administrators who gave stern admonition for conduct which constituted failure during the RfA. The subsequent interactions outside RfA reinforced however that I was valued at the contributor level.

And then the Townlake comment brings the question to full fruition. Even to the point that I should extend this effort hoping you might see fit to agree. This is exactly the conduct which should curtail if the desire to reduce the exodus associated with RfA is to anticipate success. To the extent I should be admonished further, please advise, because I must also endeavor to correct my own deficiencies, which first must become known. A final thought in this regard is that I miss the opinion of Townlake here, which is the unknown, I most wish I could have known. To the secondary concerns, I am keen, and compelled, but not unambiguously clear, as I would otherwise liked to have been. My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are difficult to understand. Can you make clear what administrator tools you wish to be used here? 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The tool I wish to be used is the power of reason. And I don't want a false premise to govern its application. There have been statements here that somewhere it was suggested my RfA should have passed. This is not the facts I understand, and if you can show where that has been said please provide a diff. The only thing to my knowledge that has ever been said is that there is no need to destroy the candidates credibility because they didn't achieve SYSOP. Because if those things had happened, I suppose Townlake would have been justified. But that doesn't answer my allegation that it was unprovoked. Other than that close the thread as resolved. My76Strat (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent POV removal/edit warring by User:Sloopydrew

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

This user has repeatedly removed a section of criticism from The Shock Doctrine because he doesn't agree with it: [35], [36] and [37]. This is probably also him: [38].

He has ignored multiple notices: [39], [40] and in addition to this he is rude: [41] (These personal remarks was done by him any interactions between us had taken place, and hence can not be prompted by any behavior from my side).

As he ignores policy and notices and continues with the blatant POV removals in an edit warring fashion, some sort of administrator intervention here is needed, in my opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Sloopydrew and OpenFuture were edit warring here; they both seem to have broached 3RR on first impression, though I am not going back to the page history again again to count it and justify blocking either or both at the moment.

I have full protected the page for 3 days to let this settle out without further disruption. Both parties are cautioned to talk first, find consensus, and not repeat this behavior.

Any admin who wishes to sanction either individually, or do something else with protection, can do so without any objections on my part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not broached 3RR, I have attempted to talk, this has been ignored (until after I created the ANI). I don't object to the protection, it's good, but I have already done exactly what you now ask of me that I should do, so I fail to see how I should be cautioned in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you has breached 3RR because the reverts were not within a 24 hour period. However, you were certainly both edit warring. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not make more than three reverts in *total* and that was over 30 hours between the first and the last. I'm aware of Wikipedia rules and do my utmost to follow them, and I believe I have done nothing wrong here, and that includes edit-warring. I also play it safe, and make sure that I don't just follow the rules by the book by try to bend then by wiki-lawyering or anything, but follow both the book and the spirit of the rules. I reverted what was blatant POV removal of criticism. He, to his own admission, removed it because he doesn't agree with it. I explained what was wrong with his removal in the edit description. Second and third revert I tried to engage in discussion, this was ignored. After Sloopydrew made his fourth revert, I took it here, and the only response I've gotten from him was that he repeated is original insults (pre-intercation) where he claimed I should not edit the article.

Please explain to me might I did wrong in this process. Explain to me how any of this is edit warring. Also advice on how to handle non-responsive editors that doesn't engage in consensus building. Georgewilliamherbert gave some recommendations on what to do, things I had already done *before* he recommended them above. You now say that I made more than three reverts, which I did not, and you claim I engaged in edit warring, which I don't believe I did. Please advice on how to handle these situations. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up! How is this rude? Note also it is immediately below your post which says a claim by Klein is "bullshit". Moriori (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that still doesn't really answer my questions, especially in regards to how to make deal with disruptive editors in a way that Georgewilliamherbert likes. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes as you mentioned on the talk page, try WP:3O, then escalate to other steps in WP:DR from there. -- œ^™ 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles

A slightly unusual request here since there is no allegation of misconduct, I just feel this issue would benefit from some administrative coordination.

Over the last couple of days multiple articles on individual electronic components have been proposed for deletion. I do not propose to debate the merits of those proposals here since obviously consensus needs to be established. However the method in which these proposals have been made - a separate proposal for each request - has fragmented discussion over many individual pages, making it difficult for contributors to see the issue in its entirety and even more difficult to ascertain what the true consensus is. Attempts within the community to focus debate in to a single place have failed since there have been competing proposals advanced as to what is the appropriate place to centralise discussion around. As such I feel admin action is warranted to close down these discussions in favour of a single unified forum for discussion before things get too out of control.

The fragmented nature of the discussion makes it difficult to ensure that I have even found everything myself yet, but it includes among others: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Crispmuncher (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Crispmuncher is right, opening all those separate AfD's about old transistors and diodes is pretty disruptive and it's better that there be a centralized discussion about what to do with the articles. The AFD nominator seems to be on some crusade to get rid of the articles too, which isn't good (crusades are rarely good). IMHO the info in the articles is obviously encyclopedic and should be kept, but the usefulness of having separate articles per device isn't so clear. One obvious outcome is a big merge. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

From user contribs, it looks like Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is rather aggressively removing uncontentious and reasonable-looking info from the encyclopedia that he says is unverifiable, in addition to making these afd's. The first example I looked at[55] was wrong: Free Radio Berkeley is perhaps the most famous pirate station in the US. We have an article about its founder, Stephen Dunifer. Could someone speak to Wtshymanski about WP:PRESERVE? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with Wtshymanski's goals, but I think mass nominations are reaching the level of presenting a fiat accompli. It's always easier to nominate than find sources and some of these noms were undoubtedly over-reaching and ill-thought-out. This needs to be a policy-level discussion, not an afd-level discussion, otherwise we run the risk of having unequal standards depending on the outcome of individual AFD !votes. In addition, some of the AfDs have become more about Wtshymanski and his noms than the article under discussion. Surely ALL his noms aren't bad but that's the effect copy-paste noms and keep votes tend to have, leaving an all or nothing state. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All of his noms are bad in the sense that the info in the articles he is nominating is perfectly valid reference material that should stay in the encyclopedia. I tend to agree that it should mostly not stay as separate articles; but the way to implement that is with a merge discussion, not afd's. And I have a separate problem, with the pattern of Wtshymanski's editing outside the afd's, as described above. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing ANI

This ANI (posting personal information about another editor) needs the attention of an admin. Consensus is that edits which violate BLP policy should be redacted, and it needs admin attention to follow through and close. Onthegogo (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No action is required. An anon porports to be Ralph Scurfield. IntrigueBlue repeats that the anon purports to be Ralph Scurfield. It isn't OUTING and the potential damage BLP-wise is negligible. I'd advise dropping it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus suggests otherwise. Even the BLP violator seems to accept that the BLP/outing edits should be redacted. Onthegogo (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The archives are dark to google, and are for a reason. The information was posted where it was relevant to the discussion. The IP made the claim, the user reported they made the claim in a discussion of the IP's actions. This is not outing by any stretch. -- ۩ Mask 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not an outing, it is a BLP concern, and therefore the policy of WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to. Policy says that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”, including talk pages. To suggest the a potentially harmful edit, which purports to repeat an anon's claim (which may very likely be a false claim) as being acceptable because an admin has the opinion that “potential damage BLP-wise is negligible” is contrary to the policy of WP:BLP which says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Potential harm currently exists as the edits remain in the edit history. No harm can be done by redacting those potentially harmful edits, so why is there any resistance to this action which has already achieved consensus in the previous ANI discussion? Onthegogo (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs provided contain three instances of IntrigueBlue simply repeating what the IP porported without passing comment on it, and only one which made for a slightly stronger assertion. The likelihood that these diffs could be damaging to the subject is negligible. I am rather more concerned as to why you are so insistent on action being taken here, as the only reason this is a matter of public attention at the moment is that you've dragged it back up again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My interest is because I have become involved in the BLP discussion, yet failed to see the appropriate action taken following the discussion. BLP violations are wrong and they must be taken seriously by administrators. The consensus has been reached and he violator has acquiesced. There is no further reason to disagree on the admin action that needs to be taken. Onthegogo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that because an archived discussion leans one way that the decision has been set in stone. I'm an administrator interested in tying up loose ends, so I looked at the discussion and saw a pretty weak argument which petered out without fuss when the "violator" took on board the concerns raised about his actions. As such, I concluded that this is no longer an issue. Feel free to go on with your life as normal, ideally with less demands that the admin corps sees things your way in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I am interested to know if the majority of the "admin corps", which you refer to, agree that this example of a BLP violation is a case where it is proper to ignore WP:BLP policy. Onthegogo (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are being told is that this isn't a BLP violation. Restating than an IP claimed to be someone is not in anyway detrimental to the living person. Thus it is not a BLP violation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue. The editor who quotes the IP even hedges it by saying that he "claims" to be, and uses the term "if". Is this type of BLP-focus normal activity for the editor "Onthegogo", or is this a unique situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Onthegogo, this is the third time you have brought this up in the last couple of weeks. The answer has been the same each time - it is not outing to report that the IP claims to be Joe Bloe. If you bring it up again, there is the possibility that you might be blocked for disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the title of this thread pop up on my watchlist, and my heart was filled with hope. But alas, it didn't mean what I thought it meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ole was driving from Minneapolis to Duluth. He saw a sign near an exit, which read "Duluth Left". So he turned around and drove home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin User:ErrantX noted here that this is a BLP issue, so forgive me if I am confused that now I am being told that it is not a BLP issue.

Hypothetical: Just to clarify Wikipedia policy on this issue, please advise me on the following hypothetical situation:

If User:Xyz has claimed on their user page to be “Joe Blow”; and if User:Xyz is making regular edits to Acme Association (a notable organization with a Wikipedia article); and if Joe Blow is the name of the leader of Acme Association – then in that situation it would be acceptable and proper to report on the Talk:Acme Association page that User:Xyz has claimed to be Joe Blow and is therefore potentially making COI edits. Is that a correct understanding of the policy? Or would that be a BLP or Outing violation? Onthegogo (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If xyz claims to be joe blow, then it's not "outing" if someone quotes him. If xyz is telling the truth about being joe blow, then it could be COI. If xyz is lying about being joe blow, then xyz may be committing a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in that diff above has ErrantX used the word "violation". He merely states that it is a "BLP concern" for someone to claim to be an article's subject. If such a claim were a BLP violation, how would it ever be possible to declare a COI without it getting redacted? Anyway, this thread is entirely counterproductive and should be archived.--Atlan (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, along with an admonition to the OP not to bring this up again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Kansas State University

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

Looking for some assistance regarding the Kansas State University article. A bout a year ago, User:Spacini changed the name of the school in the lead from "Kansas State University" to "Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science". A debate ensued and eventually went to mediation. Spacini opted to not participate in the discussion and the mediation resulted in the article retaining its original name. In retrospect, I believe Spacini moved along, but, when I got involved, I believed an IP was Spacini (violation of WP:GOODFAITH on my part?), but in any case, while I may be in error, more than one IP editor has gotten involved and their actions are WAY over the line with regards to civility.

No. Just one. Me, myself, and I. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Um, you claimed you use more than one IP, not me; I'm just reiterating the claim. Lastly, please sign your posts (if you've been editing since 2004, you should know this) and please post within your own comments and do not break up other users' comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, there are two issues in regards to this article. The first is the gross incivility involved. While I believe this is normally warranting a block (and warnings have been issued), this person seems to be hopping between IPs. The next best option I see is to protect/semi-protect the page until civility issues can be resolved. I personally don't care which version of the page is kept, but the incivility needs to stop; users attempting to abide by the mediation do not need to be told to "f*** off", "Get f***ed", "you anti-intellectual f***s. I leave s*** alone for weeks, hoping someone will have the gumption to f***ing research f***ing facts", etc.

Man, it's deserved. Do you have any comprehension of what you're doing to the totality of human understanding? I doubt it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

I helped build several articles that were featured on the main page. I think I'm doing fine. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The second issue is the content and which version of the name should be kept. While the IP involved has cited Kansas state law for the extended name, I cannot verify any of their claims without links (and they have been requested). Those on the other side of the aisle point to many reliable sources while are readily verifiable online. Given this information, I believe the body of available evidence leads to keeping the article in its current state.

Really? How lazy are you? Pull up google and type in the statute. That ain't difficult. Or is it? Are you a simpleton? (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73) ((I am restoring several comments by the IP in the hope that admins will be motivated to deal with it, says Sharktopus)) Sharktopus^talk 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I and others have. You may indeed have a point, but that is being lost in your rants and completely inappropriate behavior. present your information in a format we can read (perhaps give us a link?). I find it hard to believe you've been editing for 7 years and this is the first problem you've had where you needed to provide a WP:RS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Look forward to your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant previous discussion occureed at WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-01/Kansas_State_University. I think the policy WP:COMMONNAME covers this: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Sharktopus^talk 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but that only covers part of the issue. The first half is the over-the-top incivility. How best to address that? An IP block seems useless. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was in recent changes, saw the edit summary [56], put in some effort, and added to the talk page, with what I think is the appropiate reference, and gave suggested a compromise [57]; it was blanked, and while it may have been collateral damage as discussed with the previous mediator, whom I gave a heads up to the flare up [58], I've reqested feedback from BQZip01 and heard....nothing. If I can put it back, I'd like know; if it's uncivil, since the blanking was labeled such, I'd like to know that, too. I still think it was probably collateral damage, but being ignored makes that seem less likely as time goes by. Dru of Id (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My post has been restored (thanks, BQZip01), but I will note here: at no point in the statute are they used interchangeably. Dru of Id (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, it was an edit conflict and I guess I missed your comments when fixing it (?!?). Sorry about that. As for the "real name" My point is that Kansas state law uses both Kansas State University and Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science to refer to the same institution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. The appeal to the most commonly recognizable form is valid for redirects. Beyond that, ... fuck this. I'm going to "vandalize" this site from here on out by removing incorrect information and inserting correct information. To start, I'm going to keep correcting the misinformation perpetuated by some very stupid individuals. I'm certain to be banned for it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Why are you cussing like that? It's not the end of the world whether an article gets one name or another, is it? Relax and just have fun with editing or take a break if you can't. -- Avanu (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone from a University, you'd think they'd be capable of making their point without resorting to profanity. I weep for the American education system. HalfShadow 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "actively aiding the dumbing-down of humanity". Ironic, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait until he does his thesis; it'll probably consist of him shouting "Fuck!" for twenty minutes... HalfShadow 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be poorly received in Kansas. They'd probably give him an F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IP based in Lawrence, and it could be he's just annoyed because University of Kansas was knocked out of the NCAA tournament. It seems unlikely he's a sock of Spacini. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits themselves happened before the game, but not the profanity spree here. Interesting... Kansan (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a way to check whether this IP is also Spacini? The IP is not only wrong about the name, but also over-the-top rude and disruptive. I know at some message boards I've posted on in the past, they did range blocks on IPs that acted this way. Is that possible here? If so, I think this IP is a prime candidate for that type of thing. LHM 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • They initiated an SPI, but it was rejected. I don't know that the profanity-laced approach is Spacini's style anyway. However, it is alleged that manipulating the data IS his style. It is alleged[59] that Spacini changed the data on the Kansas State history page to conform to the way he wants the wikipedia article to read. Thus, unfortunately, rendering their website useless as a valid source for most anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Another IP tried the same thing today. The article probably needs to be semi'd for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My dad went to KSU so I saw this and felt I had to comment. This issue is important to me and also illustrates whats wrong with Wikipedia. When the person did not go through mediation, then the mediation should have tried to consider all of the points of both sides. Rudeness should count again an editor but the facts should determine the case.

I know KSU. KSU is the usual name but the "of Agriculture and Applied Science" is a valid name too. We should try to decide if there is a rule and to apply it to all articles consistenly. Instead, we resort to accusations of sockpuppetry. This is typical bad behavior so common in wikipedia...accuse those you don't like with being a sock. Granted that guy is rude but those who oppose him have faults.

If this is still an issue, it should be revisited. KSU is probably the best title but having the full name is probably the best for the first sentence. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a moment there. I admitted I might have been hasty, but when someone comes along and edits something in the same manner as someone else and hops between IPs (but adamantly refuses to get a user name so we can tell who is who), I think it is reasonable to consider the fact that a sockpuppet may be involved. As mentioned above, multiple IPs are now involved and, perhaps it may not be Spacini, but it may be someone else.

Let us also consider your comments about mediation. While mediation may not have come to the best conclusion, when two sides are invited to participate and only one side presents any evidence, it isn't hard to understand why they came to the wrong conclusion. If someone is sent to court on a charge of murder and the prosecution presents all the evidence unopposed (despite the defense having incotrovertable evidence that the prosecution is wrong), you cannot blame the jury for reaching the wrong conclusion. You blame the defense/client. The mediation was willing to consider all sides, but no opposing views were presented.

Lastly, we do have a rule regarding this: WP:COMMONNAME. That doesn't mean that the official name should not be presented, but that doesn't mean we delete the common name we've chosen to use and insert the relatively obscure legal name with no context or without references. I would have had ZERO issues with helping to include this information, but instead, the discussion started with "you anti-intellectual f***s..." and went downhill from there. This kind of elitist attitude is ALSO the bane of WP: "experts" who have no tact. Simply present your information, let people digest it and understand it. We cannot allow people to violate every componenet of WP:CIVIL, the mere basics of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, and a host of other key tenets of WP. This user has no one to blame but himself for the end result of the article; his behavior is completely out of line.

FWIW, I edited the article a short time ago to incorporate the points brought up. This could all have been addressed on the talk page and this whole mess avoided if said user had taken the time to discuss points in a civil manner; we can't tolerate this kind of behavior no matter if the person is right or wrong. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Request a block of the IP for gross incivility:

"When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, [or] harassment...blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies."

Evidence: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

He also has access to other IPs which should be investigated and given the same effective treatment.

Warnings galore have been issued (User_talk:24.143.39.73).

Enough is enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny and "Occupation of the Baltic states"

Could an admin please look over the recent activity of Igny (talk · contribs)? He seems to me to be more of a disruptive influence then a constructive one at the somewhat contentious and long-winded discussions occurring at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Maybe if someone could talk him down, that discussion could stand a chance of reaching some sort of conclusion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did[67]. Although, frankly speaking, I see no disruption here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not think that moving an article without consensus is disruptive? Or making spurious 3RR reports? Or breaking 3r himself to war a POV tag into the article? He is being very disruptive. Tentontunic (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commercial/sales links used as footnotes

Hop (film)#References is a lengthy list that contains a large number of links to Amazon, Wal-Mart and other commercial sites that confirm the existence of certain products but are also sales pages where one can buy those products.

I understand that under WP:ELNO, we cannot point External links to pages that primarily exist to sell a product. However, I've been told by a colleague editor (not involved with the Hop page in any way) that he reads WP:EL to say that since that page only refers to ELs, that commercial sales links are perfectly usable as footnote references. It seems anti-intuitive to me that links not allowed as "further reading" ELs would be allowed for the more stringent References. It also seems as if it would open the door to abuse to have the fifth-most-visited Internet site readily available to point to one's sales page.

Is there any consensus on commercial/sales sites being used for References? Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sales links in queston come from the retailers responsible for the sales (as they do here) then they're primary sources and ideally should be replaced. Nevertheless, they're reliable enough (assuming the retailer is assumed to be, as Amazon is), and so are fine on a temporary basis. Facts worth noting are worth secondary sources, though. This probably belongs on WP:RSN rather than ANI as not admin action is required. Best following up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is borderline spam. For the most part, if the notability of those products can't be documented from secondary sources, they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Also, if the amazon links stay even temporarily, they should be cleaned up (remove the session numbers). Note: I fixed a typo in your link, so it works now. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm still a little confused — the "temporary basis" thing in particular, since we don't have a little bracketed thing like <nowik></nowiki> for that. My impression is that a site we shouldn't link to is a site we shouldn't link to, for any length of time. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead issue. I've replaced all the retailer links (I hope) to articles about the merchandise, or (in one case) a PR release announcing the product. It's very, very rarely appropriate to use retailer links as sources -- I'd be tempted to say never, but I suppose sometimes they may turn out to be the most useful way to demonstrate a product's existence or a market price. Now for the question that jumps out at me: Why is there a scary Patti Smith on the soundtrack to this film? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Glitch?

I just made an edit here [68] but my edit is not showing in the revision history. Is this some sort of glitch? Pass a Method talk 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's showing up now. There may have been a server lag while they installed the new security certificate. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey dont worry, i can finally see my edit in the history. That took around 8 minutes to show up. Weird. Pass a Method talk 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why my browser suddenly asked for a security certificate exception thing earlier. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I frequently don't see my edits immediately after saving them. I occasionally create a page, and after saving it get a "This page doesn't exist" screen. I've always attributed these glitches to multple servers without real-time updating (it may take a few secinds for all the servers to know about the newest edits). These problems only last a few seconds - when I reload a page after that, everything looks right.

And this is the wrong place for these questions - take them to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jobe457 (talk · contribs) has come back from a 2 year retirement to attack me repeatedly on both his talk page and mine. I think this recent spate comes from my repeated removal of unsourced information he was adding to Music City Mall, but that was back in October 2008. It's odd that he waited until now to attack me, but this is clearly unacceptable. Can someone block him for continuing to attack after a level 4 warning? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there're these two from 2006 and a third from 2008, all three of which are ad hominem attacks at the same editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Jobe be gawn, bye-bye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000

Resolved

 – Please see Vanna for some lovely parting gifts. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000 is a repeated Wikiharasser. Please feel free to read his talk page and read about him. Many have accused him of it. Read his talk page and now hes harassing using a talk page with other users. Pls assist. --Billybruns (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide perhaps 3 diffs that show specific instances of this behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but I'd say this probably stems from Demiurge's completely understandable SPI report [69] here, and the return of lots of SPA and promotional users to the 5W Public Relations article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Billybruns. Perhaps you are not aware that you are required to notify any users that you mention on this board. I have taken care of it for you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Original poster is a confirmed sock. Other accusers mentioned above were in fact this user. The Interior (Talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Billybruns account need blocking for block evasion since its a CU confirmed sock? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And the sockmaster is indef blocked. They should all be blocked for evasion, correct? Dayewalker (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Original poster has been blocked as a sock, thanks to Diannaa. Looks like we can wrap this one up. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonathangluck should actually be considered the sock master as that is the oldest account. Eyeserene blocked that one and the IP and I got the other two. This is one guy who should not play poker; too many "tells". --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Jonathangluck has admitted to being the same user as User:Jonathanglick13 and, if memory serves, there's at least one more admitted sock in that farm. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should've known better to file an SPI then go to sleep - now I've missed all the excitement :) Many thanks to everyone involved in sorting this out. The other thing is, Vanna (disambiguation) doesn't make me any clearer on who or what Vanna is? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be Vanna White. :) "Parting gifts" is code for "consolation prize". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should send the sockmaster a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget the Turtle Wax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing a "deletion discussion" box and blanking out the article

There's an article on Malia Ann Obama. I know Obama is hated by some but that is no reason for Cunard to keep blanking out the article and making it a redirect. The article is long and has many references. There is an AFD debate. The AFD warning box says not to remove it but Cunard keeps removing it and blanking the page.

The basic problem was that it used to be a redirect 3 years ago when Malia was an unknown. Since then, several people have written the article. All of sudden...boom...it gets blanked out. There is an AFD. Discuss it there, I would think, not keep blanking the article. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked around and I thing the sensible thing to do would be to have a discussion on the WP:redirects for discussion. But the article should be kept, not blanked, until that discussion is completed. Otherwise, people can't see what they are discussing.

What we should NOT do is to let people blank the page and try to shove the discussion in some obscure discussion page of ANOTHER article (and they themselves don't discuss, just blank it out).

My teacher said that there are a lot of hot heads in Wikipedia and people don't discuss things like they should. I will tell her what I did and see if she is right. Because I will inform her, I will cease to post anymore in Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia proves her wrong (by discussing thinks and not having people blank out articles). Kewlarticle (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kewlarticle started, with his eighth edit, a completely meritless AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination) involving an article he did not want redirected and an unrelated article. He is probably a sockpuppet given his bizarrely selective knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and procedures (i.e., he had no problem posting a third AFD nomination for an article but expressed ignorance at the use of talk pages to resolve editing disputes), but in any event it is clear from the AFD nom and his escalating rants there that this is pure disruption. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See how nasty this accusation is. In school, we are allowed to see Wikipedia but we cannot write it. So I've read Wikipedia for several years. My teacher says people are much nastier here and that when someone gets a job, they mustn't act like they see in Wikipedia.

I saw in the AFD board that a few people vote "merge and redirect". This is a valid vote so I can't see while those who blank the page don't just discuss it like rational people. But as I said, I will present this to my teacher to see if her "hothead" theory is true. So as not to contaminate the results, I will stop commenting in about 2 minutes. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the problem is that you are trying to override a previous decision to keep the article as a redirect. Using the AFD in this type of situation is procedurally wrong - hence the reason it is being reverted to a redirect and why Cunard is free to ignore that message. As has been stated on the AFD discussion (which really doesn't mean anything) you should first start a discussion on the Family of Barack Obama page to expand the redirect into a full article, instead of doing what you are doing now - revert warring - to override established consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BUT I see your point Masem but I did not override any decision. The article was there so I did more editing. Then when someone goes BOOM, blank it out, that is wrong. They should discuss it and only redirect after there is consensus. Since this is a vote in AFDs called "merge and redirect", I thought that's the best way.

It is very destructive to blank out an article.

It is also bizarre to be discussing an article on another article's discussion page. Boy, the way people act are not systematic and logical, I'll have to ask my teacher that in the morning. Bye. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTIVE TIME LINE

• article written in 2009.
• article redirected but there is no talk page discussion.
• article re-written on March 10.
• 17 days of it being re-written. The status quo is now an article.
• Boom, article blanked out. If they didn't want it, then since any discussion is 2 years ago, they should start discussing it on the talk page but they did not. That's where we should pick up. Or have an AFD where you can vote "merge and redirect". Blanking an article and calling for a discussion on ANOTHER talk page is bizarre.
• I also see that NONE of the people who blanked the article discussed it on the talk page or on the talk page of another article (some Family article)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One final comment. I think I have the good solution. I will run this by my teacher to see if I am fair and neutral.

I have voted "keep" in the AFD. Since I nominated the AFD, an administrator can close it as "speedy keep". Some administrator can then make sure the article is kept BUT, in the mean time, start a discussion in the WP:Redirects for discussion. They shouldn't blank it out because that would taint the redirect discussion. The alternative is to continue the AFD and have people vote either "keep", "delete" (probably not), or "merge, redirect". Kewlarticle (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:Redirects for discussion does not serve the purpose you're asking for - that's meant to delete or rename redirects, not to instantiate a article over a redirect. That's what talk pages of the pages that redirects point to should be used for.

As to your "history", the fact that the article has been a redirect for several months doesn't get "overruled" by the fact it was edited on March 10 and only reverted back to a redirect recently. There is discussion on Talk:Family of Barack Obama about the need (or lack thereof) for the article on his children, and there appears to be no recent discussion to counter the use of redirects at this time. You need to gain consensus there before creating something against consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

← May I remind everyone that this is covered under the Obama-related article probation and this disruption is subject to ArbCom's sanctions. There is long-standing consensus to not have stand-alone articles for Malia or Sasha Obama, and instead redirect them to Family of Barack Obama. This has been discussed more than once, and the specific (and irrelevant) tieing of the Obama children to Patrick Bouvier Kennedy has also been discussed. I suspect that there is heavy-duty socking going on here, and I would ask that this be looked into. The "I'm going to ask my teacher" narrative also has been used here before, and I believe is misdirection and utter nonsense. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, why not fully protect the redirect. Such a move would not prevent discussion of the issue on the redirect's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tvoz/talk 07:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Redirect fully protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fully protected the Sasha Obama redirect per this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Children of celebs ought to be afforded privacy, particularly they are in the public eye simply because of who there parents are, and ought to be allowed to grow up just like any other kid. Almost everything that is written about them is gossip, trivia, and ephemera. It will hardly ever have an long term relevance and will almost always be unencyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not to say that they will stay as redirects forever. It may be that at some point in the future Obama's children will attain notability in their own right. At which point, the issue of whether or not an article can be sustained may be addressed again. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. John lilburne and Mjroots, exactly right. Those are precisely the conclusions reached by consensus of the editors over there, several times. Hopefully this action will get the disruptor(s?) to move on. We appreciate the back-up here. Tvoz/talk 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just edited another issue but the problem is the same here. When people disagree in Wikipedia, they very often stop discussing and just accuse the other side of being a sock. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sign that the person has a weak position.

I can see both sides. Actually there are 3 sides. One says kids should not be covered. Another says this is a public figure. A third side is that President Obama has an opinion and some support that whether or not it meets Wikipedia standards.

It seems that there has been an AFD, a proposed redirect noticeboard discussion, and ANI. Seems like one side (the redirect side) is being heavy handed trying to force discussion into a somewhat obscure article talk page. A good way to resolve this would be to decide on the proper forum. Based on comments, it seems like AFD is the correct forum. Those are supposed to last 7 days.

I know, as is the custom, that people will be unable to disgree with me civilly and call me a sock. This is an insult as I am more articulate than the OP. Besides, I don't have an opinion on keep or not, just that this hasn't been handled well. When things are not handled well, it prolongs the problem, not resolves it. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this has been handled exactly right. I forgot to mention here that you'd be coming back in complaining about people calling you a sock, under a brand new account, and that you'd pepper other places with the same nonsense. You've done it so many times before, I thought maybe you'd have gotten bored. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik's behavior is disruptive and uncivil

I logged on today to find that Gregorik (talk · contribs) had first added the following to the Diva Zappa talk page [70], then added a notability template to the article [71], then blanked paragraphs of information, including two of the reliable sources used to help establish notability [72]. The article survived an AfD a little over a year ago, so prevailing consensus was that the subject met the GNG. After I undid the blanking, commented at the talk page and warned him to not blank cited information, he blindly reverted me, even marking this as minor [73]. Further warnings on his talk page were blanked by him, and then he began using a mocking tone. Someone who has been editing here since 2007 should know better than to blank references from articles and then respond with taunts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He also appears to be engaged in an ongoing revert war with various IPs and accounts at Free Grace theology in violation of WP:OWN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

His stance appears to be somewhat slanted, I did no ill deed, but judge for yourselves. I wasn't mocking him. I do reserve the right to delete undue threats from my talkpage. And it's 2005, not 2007 (when I started here). Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If by "slanted" you mean "in favor of guidelines and policies as they stand as opposed to blanking references to make an otherwise acceptable article appear to fail notability", then guilty as charged. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Some things I do stem from my taking part in WP:Countering systemic bias, a very neglected, but uber-important WikiProject. Wikipedia is almost hopelessly full of systemic bias, and articlas like Diva Zappa prove it. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? What does systemic bias have to do with a this article? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Much to do with it. I'm sorry you don't realize. "Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture)" (Wikipedia). Puffed-up pop culture articles like that one are the slow death of WP. Stuck-up officious behavior that tries to protect these unmerited articles based on rigid policies ("significant coverage" justified by a single NYTimes article etc.) only does damage. On a different note, I'm never "edit warring", not in the Free Grace article, not elsewhere. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that be the WP:Countering systemic bias which is explicitly to "remedy omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented"? Yes, Wikipedia overrepresents recent events and English-speaking countries, but the solution to that is to expand coverage of other areas, not to get rid of anything you happen to disapprove of. – iridescent 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"justified by a single NYTimes article" is proof you haven't even read the article. If notability was based on a single NYT article, it would have been deleted at the second AfD over a year ago. I don't see any NYT article used in Diva Zappa... did you mean LA Times? What we do have is three newspaper articles and two full magazine features, one in a knitting magazine and the other in a fashion magazine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking in general terms when I said "a single NYTimes article." Fine, let's make it 3 newspaper articles. She's still not encyclopedia material (and there are thousands like her on here). Your counter-arguments strengthen my own argument. But if I am the only one who objects unmerited daughter/son/spouse-of-rock-hero articles, I rest my case. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list of guidelines you're either violating or don't understand. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the article has been to AFD twice, if you disagree Gregorik, that is the correct forum - if you think you can bring a new argument to the table that has not been raised before. As it is, I'm not sure I can see valid rationale for deleting that material from the page... it seems sourced & germane, unless something else can be raised against it? As to Free Grace theology, could someone explain the issues there in more detail? It looks like an under trafficked article which is has heavy IP editing to it; has any attempt at discussion occurred? If not, why not? All of these discussion is for the relevant talk pages though; avoid edit warring and follow the WP:BRD process. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik, this image seems to sum up your position and there's a lot of people who agree with you. However, I don't think the solution is to open up a can of whupass on one "crufty" article or even a whole lot of "crufty" articles. Doing so will only have you banging your head against the wall. The solution is to write more "actually useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing, possibly tenditious

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continually engages in editing that is driven and aggressive. Although I agree with and believe in being BOLD, this editor seems to typically minimize or ignore community input, trivializing editors and content that he disagrees with, or simply BOLDLY making changes despite objections. I have reposted my latest attempt to communicate with this editor, who makes literally dozens or hundreds of changes a day on Wikipedia, but seems generally unwilling to engage the community. I have seen this pattern emerge in the last few months, since I began editing on Wikipedia again.

Others have brought complaints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_refuses_to_discuss_disputed_edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive100#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

And also, here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#PROD_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggles_Prize

Mr. Norton contested a PROD and then accused the editor who nominated it of abuse, and then finally jumped into the conversation hours (and dozens of edits) later.

As yet, I can see no change in this behavior. Below, as I indicated, is my latest attempt.

Richard Norton - please seek consensus

I know you have to have these pages on your watchlists. And we have an editor above who is questioning the scope of the word diaspora, and immediately thereafter, you go to work on the article adding an expanded definition.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156474

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156742

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156921

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421157162

But why are you so averse to actually discussing this on the Talk page? This is the problem that I am trying to address with your editing. It is simply a one-sided thing that you choose to ignore others, and it isn't that you are not available, you have hundreds of pages on your Watchlist, and you make dozens to hundreds of changes to Wikipedia every day. So instead of getting support, you just decide. I don't see any references to support the changes made above. I actually went out and checked Google in order to answer the editor above. I am strongly in favor of reverting all the above edits, but I don't want to become an edit warrior, I want to see my fellow editor take the time to actually engage in the community. The above edits, and several others I have taken note of recently, in this editor's opinion have taken on an air of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and I feel that it needs to be addressed. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Norwegian New Zealander (Norwegian:Norsknewzealendere) are New Zealanders of Norwegian ancestry, the majority of these people were part of the Norwegian diaspora."

Later in the article it makes a mention of two settlements one starting in 1868 and the other in 1872. It also mentions emigration from Norway died down.

In the edits you added, you still haven't provided an answer to the editor above, and I am reluctant to modify the first paragraph ("The Norwegian diaspora consists of Norwegian emigrants and their descendants") without consensus to remove "and their descendants". -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• RFCU is the proper venue for this. Immediate administrative action to address the alleged problems is incredibly unlikely to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with thumperward; this complaint is not about an incident. Please take it to WP:RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will happily endorse an RfcU filed about this user in relation to his editing behavior, and I don't think I'm the only one.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that an RfCU will probably generate far more heat than light given that past ones on ARS members do little more than attract friends to support, but then I might be accused of being an antiARSite because I'm generalizing based on observed activity. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using first -- my intuition (ended up at 3RR), and second -- the advice of admin Sandstein (he was being neutral about it), to him it sounded like I needed to file such a complaint at WP:Disruptive Editing (which I think is here). But if RfCU is the right place, we can try again. Again, I am not really interested in anything more than hopefully persuading Richard to work a little more with the community and less as a supersonic torpedo, zipping through articles at light speed -- which typically seems to leave a bad impression with many editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a vastly clearer-cut case of RFC/U being the appropriate forum than the above case on Noleander, and to be honest I'm confused as to why both you and Tarc seemed considerably more sanguine in that case (where there was, and is, a reasonable chance of administrative action being both possible and likely to have an effect) than in this one (an editor whose actions on one particular article are of far less concern than his general modus operandi whcih happens to be supported by a bunch of like-minded users). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Sandstein thought this was the proper place for a notification of WP:DR (fixed from DU to DR after checking). It can be moved to whatever forum or section is most fitting. -- Avanu (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help in making sure I actually properly file it this time. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

Resolved

Could an admin pop over to above article were confirmed sock puppet is edit warring. Basil Stauner is the sock confirmed here. Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New sock on article now also User talk:Cedric Stauner Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that the page be semiprotected due to the excessive sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected and socks blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Mo ainm~Talk 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A range block should be considered, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Seeker02421 disruption at Yahweh

Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) is an interesting character who has shown a longterm patter of introducing commentary into the Yahweh. The locus of the of the disruption is the user feels the common transliteration of "Yahweh" is incorrect in Hebrew as it "does not exist in any hebrew manuscript." This user is famous at Talk:Yahweh for producing largely semi-coherent rants Sample 1Sample 2 The most trouble some aspect is introducing rants in the article space and has been the most frustating to try and get the user stop. The editor either ignores this or asks us to disprove the point in his commentary. I am listing all recent examples here

• Latest Today March 28 2011 included "THERE IS NO HEBREW SPELLING OF "Y-a-h-w-e-h" THAT CAN BE FOUND IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT ON THE PLANET EARTH."
• Feb 2 2011 included "it is possible that text found in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh" may be completely "verifiable" according to the best 2011 sources, yet it still may not be absolutely true" and was Warned by ResidentAnthropologist
• January 31st "Since Wikipedia's policy remains "Verification not truth" I do not presently know of any Wikipedia rule that would prevent discussing the diety "Yahweh" as He is described in the New Jerusalem Bible on this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh!"

Thier talk page reveals this has been going on for quite a while and no amount talking or warning is getting the message through. I dont know if topic ban is appropriate or straigh out indefinite block but nothing seems to be working. The editor only drops in for maybe an edit or two month so anything and its almost always to insert this material in Yaweh. I cant find one constructive contribution to the article space in awhile. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the content of his contributions, he's basically putting talk-page commentary on the content directly into the article. Assuming he's been warned not to do that, it ought to be treated as deliberate vandalism and be met with reversion and accelerating blocks. That's probably enough for now.--Scott Mac 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Repeated pattern repeated warnings hist talk page indicates the pattern of warning rather well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. You've issued a final warning. Block him next time. His contributions are all to that article, so an indef block is likely to result in him simply creating a new account. Better to try to teach compliance by escalating blocks.--Scott Mac 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Facepalm That "final warning" was last month the last time he added it. He did again today that why I bought it here The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I read that warnings are proposed. However, this issue has been going on for at least two full years now. Seeker02421 comes up with his rubbish every few months, then he gets warned and sometimes banned for a few days. But he always comes back. I have conducted lengthy discussions with him but even after all this time the point of his argument still escaped me. His position seems to be that the identification of the biblical god depends on the usage of the "right" spelling. He seems to claim that if the name is different then another deity is meant. I think permanent ban would be the right procedure (there have been numerous "final" warnings already) ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Enough. There is no excuse for Seeker's behaviour. This is pure disruption; and as people have noted above, just the latest in an endless stream of disruption on this page from this user. The article takes account of his concern in sentence 2, which I thought he was happy with. Yet we're back to this nonsense again. This is not an attempt to enhance the encylopedia. It's gone on long enough; he's been warned enough. He's not some wet-behind-the-ears newbie editor. He knows full well what he's doing, and it needs to end. At the very least, we need to be looking at an indefinite topic ban from the community here. But given (as ScottMac points out above) that this is the only article he seems to show any interest in, perhaps the simplest thing just to do what Cush says and go straight to a permanent ban. I'm usually pretty liberal, and would usually argue for as low level approach as possible. But in this case enough is enough. Jheald (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User Seank100 involved in multiple mass disruptions.

Seank100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is refusing to listen to reason. As well as an open SPI investigation here, Seank100 has spent the last few days removing sourced content from The X Factor (U.S.) without explaination. He left a feable attempt on the article's talk page to justify his actions, saying that he works for Simon Cowell and that Cowell asked him to modify the article. Despite being reverted by multiple editors the user has blanked their talk page numerous times. Rather than clog this page up with all the revisions that have happened, I'll put the most recent removals of songs, here (4 edits removing stuff). Intervention is required as there is a clear reluctance to co-operate with others. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also am replacing content of his edits. As stated, he removes content with no reason. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

USER: Orangemarlin

Resolved

 – The edit in question was either a joke, or such a minor comment that it requires no administrator intervention. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

Overseer19XX (talk · contribs)

Orangemarlin is rude and discourteous. His posts on peoples talk page as well as his own, shows his bias, and uncouth attitude. His edits should be reviewed to check for NPOV as well as any additional harassment. Overseer19XX (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're not going to get very far with this unless you provide diffs of what you are talking about. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know Orangemarlin was back. I looked and I can't find anywhere that these two users have come into contact ... at least not with Overseer19XX's current name. --B (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, from looking at the user's talk page and the deleted Wikipedia:Administrator review/Orangemarlin. It's this that Overseer19XX is complaining about. I think we can close this. --B (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Marking as resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history

99.125.86.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is a contentious topic and needs some discussion, and possibly a delete, move, merge, redirect or something. But we have an edit-warring IP who is repeatedly blanking it and replacing it with a claim that Islam didn't exist before the 9th century - two people, including me, have now reverted the blanking and asked the IP to discuss it first, but they don't seem to be much in the mood for talking. I don't want to take any admin action myself, as I am involved in the content disagreement (albeit only in an attempt to get it discussed before action is taken) - and I'm off to bed very shortly. So it would be great if someone else could keep an eye on it and take whatever action might be needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [74] [75], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [76] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [77] [78], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DiehardNFFLbarnone

DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs) is most likely a troll who should be blocked. Besides one bizarre edit from October,[79] he has only been active in the past three days, in which he:

1. undid multiple edits of an established user and accused him of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries.[80]
2. called somebody "trash"[81] in a biography and claims that it was appropriate "in the context".[82]
3. wrote in another biography "It's was a proven fact that he was awsome. Wikipedia decided not to take this down because it is true."[83] and claims the statement was re-inserted in accordance with community consensus on "the article's talk page".[84] That talk page has been empty for almost a year.

—LOL ^T/_C 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. This has to be someone's sockpuppet... Grandmasterka 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude, uncooperative, not-neutral, edit warring, etc.

Some admin, please check the contributions of Jane his wife (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are especially charming. I smell the sock of a blocked user, esp. given the admission of not being a new user. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)