Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎User:Routerone: new section
Line 600: Line 600:
:I see that [[Mission 6]] was also A7'd in Nov 2008. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
:I see that [[Mission 6]] was also A7'd in Nov 2008. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
::Must have been a bug, there is nothing in the protection log. I went ahead and moved it, but you might want to try and find some better sources or it may get deleted again. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
::Must have been a bug, there is nothing in the protection log. I went ahead and moved it, but you might want to try and find some better sources or it may get deleted again. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

== User:Routerone ==

This incident covers etiquette, edit warring, and battleground issues so I'm reporting it here instead of at a narrower-purpose noticeboard.

{{userlinks|Routerone}} has been engaging in 3RR violations at [[Linguistics and the Book of Mormon]] (see page history for evidence), incivility at [[User talk:Duke53]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duke53&curid=2803132&diff=357652439&oldid=355047744]), and in general has exhibited an ongoing battleground mentality regarding the subject of Mormonism (see user's contribs). User is also reverting other editors' complaints regarding them on noticeboards ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=357657146&oldid=357656844]). Although my religious sympathies align with those of Routerone, I find their behavior inappropriate. I think Routerone does not exhibit the degree of emotional detachment from the subject of Mormonism to constructively contribute to articles or discussions surrounding that topic. I'd like some uninvolved admins to have a look to determine if some sort of sanction is warranted -- whether a stern warning, topic ban, or limited-duration block. Thanks! [[User:Alanyst|alanyst]] <sup>/[[User talk:Alanyst|talk]]/</sup> 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:40, 22 April 2010


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. (archivessearch)

    User:Abductive long term disruption

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

    Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be.

    Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [1] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [2] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [3] and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection.

    So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, [4]. That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way.
    • The first was in reference to this [5] where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked.
    • The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. [6], [7], [8], [9] 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours.
    • In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor was it about the usual politics, religion, spam or ethnic stuff that graces ANI daily. User:Crossmr has a major WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of WP:BRD and would much rather fight over it than actually discuss it. You have a history of it that extends almost back to your account creation. Coupled with your admitted sock puppeting, your account has basically been disruptive for its entire history. You've also failed to comment on the account issues. Your user page claims you've been here over 3 years, both accounts you've had were only made last year. Are you still using another account?--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I categorically disagree with Hippo43's characterization of Crossmr's actions. Crossmr has been dispassionate and professional concerning his interaction with Abductive, who obviously has a history of disrupting other pages in unacceptable ways. And Crossmr has repeatedly (the requests would be approaching about 50 times or so by now) requested that both Hippo43 and Abductive give specific information to back up their claims and demands. They have not done that. And this is entertaining: "Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content." Wow. That is simply not true. Please refer to the discussion page for the proof. In fact, both Crossmr and myself have repeatedly and extensively made efforts to discuss the issues in a democratic fashion on the discussion page. Crossmr's "focus on the individual" is of course related to the fact that Abductive has insisted pressing positions that frankly make little sense; Crossmr, to his credit, has kept his composure. In the end, both Hippo43 and Abductive have incessantly insisted that they have the right to completely change the makeup of a very controversial section that has represented the status quo for years. However, the burden to provide proof for the need for that change is imminent, and the burden belongs to them — not anyone else. The problem is that they cannot provide that proof. So because they will not simply acknowledge this and provide a lettered response concerning proof that has been requested, they just keep making the same statements that do not represent arguments, or content that makes their case, but only the vague pretense of such. And it wastes everyone's time in the process. Computer1200 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample consensus seeking in all the various sections titled "proposal" all started by me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add [10] but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note that with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to (and apologies if I felt like I was), but I wanted to make that clear that Abductive and DreamGuy were clearly being baited and harassed by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer during that time. As far as the other account is concerned, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account and [11] (the latter is repeated in that SPI case). –MuZemike 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute [12] where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of pointy and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits. He's also shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and continues to disrupt across multiple articles. I provided him with 2 google searches which showed tons of wikipedia articles using the phrase "study conduct/done by". His response was to run to those articles as fast as he could and remove as many mentions of that as he could. [13], [14], [15], [16], etc you can see his contrib history for today with a full list of all the articles he's tried to do this to. He knows there is no consensus for this change, I've asked him several times to cite a policy or guideline for it and he can't. Each time it is a new excuse as to why a researcher's name can't be on an article, but I think one tells us a lot. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Wikipedia article on their doors This would seem to indicate some personal interest/bias in the situation. [17] especially since he's utterly failed to properly cite any policy which says researchers names shouldn't appear in the article and they should only appear in the footnotes. He's reverted the Asian fetish article twice again today despite the on-going discussion to try and reach consensus on the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Somebody tell this user he doesn't own articles, and that he shouldn't wikihound. He really isn't getting it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here [18], and [19]. What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read WP:BRD but at this point I don't know if you're just not capable or what the problem is. You were bold, you were reverted. You should engage in discussion. Instead you continue to revert and push it on to may other articles knowing your opinion is opposed. This is further evidence of your on-going and long term disruptive behaviour. We're still waiting for you to explain what happened with your account between Nov 10, 2006 and now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard WP:BRD and continue to edit war your way across wikipedia to try and push your point of view. As I've already pointed out the absence of that sentence on an article doesn't prove the community disagrees with its usage. Your claim was no articles used it, you were wrong. Now in an attempt to correct that you're going to try and edit as many articles as you can to remove it. You've been asked to stop and discuss it and you've refused. This is your disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Wikipedia, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Wikipedia articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Wikipedia article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have told you many times, it's WP:UNDUE, in particular WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And [20] why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions [21]. If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't look because you Wikilawyer everything, and because I use abductive reasoning. What I try to do is educate. As for my actions or statements being unchallenged, how much admin inaction here does it take for you to get the message? Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it is worth User:Abductive previously edited as User:Joey the Mango. He put some odd comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Concise diffs

    • Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
    • Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here [22]. Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
    • In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior [23] It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
    • Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
    • just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having [28], but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article [29] [30] twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way [31]. this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
    • During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. [32], [33], [34]. See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
    • After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. [35], [36].
    • He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it [37] or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
    • Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article [38]. Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
    • While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV [39], he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it [40].

    Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" [41]. It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Wikipedia articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Wikipedia's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per WP:UNDUE. This issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I say that using the names of researchers inline lends a certain weight to the statement that may or may not be justified. In spite of the fact that WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with WP:UNDUE and everything to do with presenting a clear picture to the reader.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: [42] after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with WP:WEASEL, you went and gutted one article changing several statements from being attributed to a particular person or sources point of view to blanket facts. [43]. While he did remove a couple "some people say" kind of references, the vast majority of the ones he removed were named sources. He's basically providing false edit summaries. Claiming to be removing "according to's" per WEASEL, when in fact WEASEL only says you should remove the ones that are unattributed and unclear. Named sources don't fall under that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the List of University of Toronto people edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.
    The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.
    What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.
    I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the WP:TLDR award goes to... You guys! Serioisly, have you noticed that everyone else seems to have tuned out a while back here? Dare I suggest you do the same and just try to avoid one another for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not particularly helpful and since the addition of the concise diffs section we've been getting some helpful feedback.--Crossmr (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.
    Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive [44]. 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to WP:BRD I've got no issues dropping it. But if he's going to just blindly revert any opposition to his POV we're just going to be back here tomorrow.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrative actions

    Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him [45]. As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of WP:BRD he just reverted and made bad faith accusations. The blind reversion and bad faith accusations need to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors.[46], [47]. It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

    • [48] Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
    • [49] he does it again
    • [50] and a third one here
    • An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. [51], [52], [53]
    • Ignoring WP:BRD Abductive continues his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits, assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. [54], [55], [56]

    I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

    This has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban needs tweaking

    Frankly, I don't like interaction/topic bans very much. I think they generally create more problems than they solve, and one particularly flawed one has come to my attention. There is a ban listed here that came out of a discussion here at ANI last month that restricts three users, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factomancer from interacting with one another. In the right hand column a huge loophole is detailed. These three are to ignore each other except if they think one of the others needs to get in trouble, then there is a complex set of procedures they have to follow to report one of the other two. I think the community made a mistake in adding these provisions. The ban is supposed to prevent these users from stirring up trouble with one another, but this loophole actually encourages them to look for opportunities to create more drama. I propose that this "reporting mechanism" be removed from the ban and that the users be instructed to ignore one another, period, full stop, no exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the rules are silly, and IMO the ban is not working as it should. The ban was supposed to prevent the community from the disruption by constant fights at AN/I, but as the events of the last few days have shown, the effect is just the opposite. Although I have never violated neither the ban itself nor the rules, I feel myself like an informer in the worst meaning of that word, and I'm ashamed of myself for following those rules and doing that. I am asking the community that the ban is lifted from all three of us. I promise voluntarily to stay away from the user no matter what the user does to me, and not under any circumstances report the user to AN/I (I have never done anyway). I was reported to AN/I quite a few times. I promise to do my best that it will not happen again, or at least happen much more seldom :) I mean I promise never again to write "Drork was right" in my edit summary :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *It's worth noting that I have now blocked Mbz1 for violating the ban yet again with this edit [57]. The restriction clearly prohibits commenting on one another's talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC) actually I misread it, ignore that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At first, Beeblebrox's idea seemed strange to me, but now I see the logic of it. We would literally be preventing all complaints by these users about one another, per any channel. If they consider this poses a handicap to their participation in Wikipedia, they have the option of not editing here. Of course, if they can choose articles to work on that are unlikely to be visited by any of the others, then they should not be inconvenienced by this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make things easier here, here are the details of the reporting mechanism: "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." I've never seen such an elaborate scheme in an interaction ban before. The main text of the ban says it's to be "broadly interpreted" and this provision seems to directly contradict that, and to actually encourage stalking and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That language was written by me; it's a close or direct copy of an interaction ban from mid last year-ish that I wrote, after discussion on ANI and elsewhere, for other users. Let's see... the Koalorka / Theserialcomma interaction ban from Aug 22 2009 and on - [58]. It seemed to be well liked at that time as a reasonable balance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the discussion, and indeed at the time there was support for this, and I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, it just hasn't worked out very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, the next appropriate step IMHO would probably be indeffing people, not changing the restriction; but that's up to the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem to be blocked indf if I violate the terms of the ban. But I do have problems with totaly erroneous enforcment. And the talks about the ban "spirit" replacing the ban "letters" are actually an open door to block without a case.--Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Yes, this makes eminent sense. I have watched this interaction ban work out horribly, just become an attempt at "gotcha!" while it creates more and more drama. Beeblebrox is right-on. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Expand Actually perhaps lifting the ban altogether would be best per Mbz1. I think both users have learned their lesson here. Mbz1 has made a commitment, now if Factomancer would make a similar commitment I think this thing will go away. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to make nearly any commitment to make this distracting ban go away, but I doubt that is going to happen. Factomancer (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Anything that reduces the WikiDrama in this editing area is a Good Thing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Otherwise, one of them may violate seriously and get away with it, with the others unable to point it out without being sanctioned themselves. If the users can't abide by the terms as written, the next logical step is an outright ban, rather than removing their ability to point out violations. The intermediate step is asymmetrically unfair. I agree the situation is approaching or at the next step level, but this proposal isn't the right next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose considering the problems already existing with the enforcment of this ban (which to me seem as bad idea from the begining)removing the reporting mechanism will only make it just worse, of course. --Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in that it would stop any encouragement for one party to follow the other around looking for violations. --SGGH ping! 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to SGGH: And you assume that reports of violations from other editors who are not banned will not come?--Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of an interaction ban is to reduce drama, clearly that goal has not been achieved. Most of us can see for ourselves when it is in everyone's best interest to walk away from a user or a situation, but you three don't seem to be able to do that on your own, hence this restriction. This is the central point here, and I know you're sick of me but I'm going to try one more time to clarify this. You should just ignore Factomancer, and they should ignore the two of you. Try and follow the spirit of the ban as opposed to the letter of it, and everyone, including you, will be happier on the long run. If one of you is doing something that is really so bad as to merit blocking, it will be noticed by somebody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Makes sense. The reporting mechanism was a very bad idea to begin with, given that it encouraged each party to inform on each other. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per Factomancer (with the word "apparently" in front of "encouraged"). --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as I have stated earlier about this interaction ban: "the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block." And, IMO, one should also consider applying such a full interaction ban on more editors in the I/P-area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan B

    Maybe George is right, and it's time to up the ante. What if we leave the ban conditions as they are now, but instead of a slowly escalating series of blocks, any of the three who can be shown to have violated the ban gets an indef block. If this thing actually had some teeth it would have a better chance of curbing the problem. The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue be eliminating themselves from the equation. In the interest of keeping this conversation on point I will go on record right now in recusing myself from any further blocks based on these conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Along these lines - the whole point of this was really to point out to those involved that the community has communally run out of patience with all of this mess, both sides of it. In general it would seem like the message was not received.
    We can only warn so many times. The question is zero more warnings, one more warning, or N (very small) more warnings. Beeblebrox is proposing zero more; I agree that that's within reason given the situation. Perhaps two more and a six month block is the least strict next step I think I'd agree is reasonable. Some solution bounded by those two limits seems about right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero more warnings - It really is time to try to put a stop to all this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No more warnings - Agree with BMK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Ugh, I didn't want to be drawn into this discussion, and I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break, but this proposal would mean one of us would be indeffed for sure. Given that we are active in similar topic areas, it's very, very easy to accidentally trigger the interaction ban without thinking, particularly considering that the ban is to be "construed broadly" and one of the ban conditions is reverting an edit with no time-limit, which essentially means that we have to check the origin of all material in an article before editing it to be 100% sure that we aren't violating the ban; even the writer of the ban has admitted that that condition is an onerous burden.
    "The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue"? Only if it's me. Is that the assumption here? Because I don't really feel I deserve to be indeffed quite yet. And if not, then let's be honest and discuss that.
    To be frank, I think this ban has been a disaster and has encouraged interaction, of the "informing" nature, not discouraged it. A simple ban on reporting parties to noticeboards would have had a much better outcome because that was 99% of the original problem. Factomancer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we agree that the ban has been a disaster, that's something. It wouldn't have to be you that would get the indef, I only meant that the first one of you to violate again would get the banhammer, although I suppose it's possible that one of the other two would get it and then one or the other of the remaining users would be foolish enough to follow suit. Of course the more desirable result would be for the three of you to take this seriously and just follow the ban to the letter and not make any edit that even comes close to maybe possibly violating the ban, ending the need for any more blocks or other drama. Simply ending this cycle of drama is my only concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty I have taken this ban seriously; unfortunately I assumed the ban was supposed to prevent actual interaction not incidental, accidental mentions of the other party or editing material they may have also once edited. As I explained, I am still concerned about the indefinite nature of the revert prohibition. Given that Wikipedia doesn't have a "blame" feature, in my opinion the ban still places an undue burden on us. Factomancer (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Give plan A a chance to work first, at least. --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support zero warnings toward me only--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    'Oppose Plan A and B and also Mbz fetish for getting the third degree, though I might understand wanting to get forced to take a break. The interaction ban was interesting, but simply detracting from editing the encyclopedia. I would suggest a simple extended topic ban on all and hope the time off does it's usual work. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the admins who has had the slightly traumatic experience of trying to enforce the ban, I agree that it has not really worked, mostly because the three editors have a penchant for excessive drama (to perhaps varying degrees) and attract a peanut gallery of equally unhelpful supporters in each instance of conflict. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox and Georgewilliamherbert above.  Sandstein  21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan Z

    Every successful person has a plan Z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue has wasted too much time. I propose a completely novel solution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The trouble with trying to be fair is that people can push to the edge and then pull back when they get some kick back - the incentive is always to try and game the system. I propose a solution from Drama theory. This is not supposed to be fair. The punishment is random, and its scale may not fit the crime. Bigger crimes are more likely to have bigger punishments though. Thus while there is a slim chance a participant may get away with a major provocation, there is also a chance that even a mild infraction would be met by a response completely out of proportion to the crime. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    People who continue with undesirable behaviour will inevitably at some point be met with sudden death, completely out of the blue. In this case, this would be a ban, but several other punishments may be meted out with higher probability, such as long blocks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The participants either behave, or the random throw of the dice will remove them at some point from the situation - leaving the remaining participants to contemplate the corpse and the value of life before deciding their next course of action. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a set of dice with all 6's on them.
    And another with "Live" on half the faces and "Die" on the other half. And one die with "Die" on all 6 sides.
    Plan Z, however, is obviously the Zombie solution, which is not satisfactory. This situation must not live on and on and on in a warped half-alive state. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (In an effort to lessen the tension), not Zombies GWH, but Nazis.--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I truely like this solution, but the problem is that the one who should enforce the ban is always an admin-i.e., assumably human, and therfore, it's very hard to assume (maybe impossible) that the choice he/she made is realy random and totaly unbiased. If there is any on line application that allow to both editor and administrator to see a set of dice and then the result after they were thrown-and lets say that 2=no sanction needed...3=48 hours blocked, 4=72 hours blocked.. 7=one month topic ban 12=indf block-then it could work. But it's all not even realy hypothetical.--Gilisa (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Zombies is Plan 9, surely? Guy (Help!) 09:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan "B" for ban me alone

    Okay, here's the deal.
    I am the subject of three months broadly constructed topic ban (not to be mistaken with indefinite broadly constructed interaction ban :) )
    I propose
    1. To lift the interaction ban altogether from everybody involved or leave it in effect only for me. I have never violated the interaction ban, and I have no difficulties in complying with the ban in the feature,
    2. Change the time span of my broadly constructed topic ban from three months to indefinite without the right to appeal. This will successfully illuminate almost every possibility of my interaction with others, who are editing in the area that falls under my topic ban.
    Few words why I am proposing that change:
    1. Gilisa got into that interaction ban by a pure accident, and ever since the editor was blocked two times for nothing. I feel myself responsible for those blocks.
    2. Following the rules of the interaction ban turned me into an informer. I'd rather to be informed about than to be an informer myself.
    3. I'm tired of being discussed on AN/I over and over again. Hopefully with the new measure it will not happen again.
    @Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I would hate to be forced to take a break. I am just tired. I called an anti-Semite "anti-Semite" at an article's discussion page, and was blocked for "BLP violation" without any warning. I wrote a first article about Robert Kennedy, and was dragged into fishing SPI. I was not allowed to remove the accusations of me using a sock neither from the article's discussion page nor from the article deletion request even after SPI came out as "unrelated". I was also falsely accused in being a racist. I wrote a second article about 800 years old synagogue, and was falsely accused in "demonizing Muslims in every paragraph". I filed my first ever AE request about the admin, who misused his tools, and was topic banned. I exercised my right to appeal the ban, and few admins suggested that I should be punished harsher and harsher for doing just that "As such, I oppose any slippage in the current ban on Mbz1, and in fact encourage it being tightened" and "I recommend that further appeals, complaints, and other nonsense from Mbz1 should result in escalating blocks.". I was wikihounded on its worst, and not just by one, but by few users (I guess I am an easy target). So, no, Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I am tired, and I guess everybody is tired of me. Now, after two blocks for the "violation" of my topic ban, and declined request to add some reference to my old article, I understand how broadly constructed my topic ban is, and I will be fine in avoiding being trapped and blocked for violating it. After everything that happened to me I am no longer interested in the editing I/P related articles. I am a coward, I would not like to end up with an indefinite block issued by admins, who are simply too busy, and/or cannot care less to try to get to the bottom of the problem.
    So, please adopt my proposal ASAP, and archive the thread. Please, everybody, accept my apology for the time I took. From now on I will try to do my best to remain in the corner I was put into. Sorry for the long post, hopefully the very last one on that board.
    @Sandstein, I might have violated my "broadly constructed" topic ban with that post. I am sorry about that. It will be great, if you could forgive me this hopefully very last violation, and do not block me, but I sure, will understand, if you do block me. I guess my next block for the violation of my topic ban is a week now. Anyway....

    --Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I really don't think disruptive users should be allowed to propose the conditions of their own bans. We went through months and months of rigmarole with Grundle2600, haggling over which of the parameters (originally of his own devising) of the topic ban he was or was not skirting at a given time. I don't even like the idea of interaction bans, as they just create needless drama and red tape for the rest of us to deal with. We aren't equipped to deal with what amounts to a wiki-restraining order. How about users are simply held to the standards of conduct that we already have in place? If User A does something against User B that is sanctionable...personal attacks, incivility, or whatever...then simply sanction User A for that action right then and there. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that would be nice, wouldn't it? The problem is that before this interaction ban, User A would repeatedly do something sanctionable against User B and admins would refuse to take any action simply because there was so much drama that they would rather stay uninvolved instead of do their job. That's how this idiotic interaction ban came to be. Now it has evolved into the same thing. After a while of strict enforcement, it has reached the point where admins are refusing to take action on clear violations of the interaction ban simply because they don't want a spotlight on themselves. Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarc, I do not know the user you are talking about, but apparently the user was asking to reduce the sanctions not to make them harsher. The only reason I asked for that is to stop taking time and causing the disruptions. I would not like my proposal to be a cause of a new lengthy discussion. I said what I had to say. I believe the project will benefit from my proposal. Let's just adopt it by a sole admin's action (I was topic banned by a sole admin action anyway). Please. Okay I said it all, and now I am taking that board off my watch list.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc, I have no problem with any editor making any proposal. I don't think, and you probably agree with me, that editors in conflict with the sanctioned editor are in principle always a better source for amking proposals about him or her. All we have to weight is the rationale of the suggestion. No one is asking for pity or even second chance here. We only ask reason to play a role here again. As Mbz said, I was blocked for nothing twice, and I found this interaction ban to be totaly superfluous and much more distrupting than anything that preceded it. And I do believe that there was too much drama about the drama. Lifting this interaction ban would be more beneficial.--Gilisa (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breein seems to feel that anyone who won't make a block based on their recommendation is some sort of coward. At least that's what was strongly implied in my case. The point, which I have tried again and again to make to this group, is that interaction bans are supposed to be a mechanism for reducing drama, and just because we could block somebody for a technical violation does not mean we must. Conversely, if a user engages in behavior that is contrary to the point of the ban without technically violating its specific conditions, they can still be blocked. Unlike content editing, admin work consists of making numerous judgement calls as opposed to rigid adherence to rules. At least you are all pissed off at me now instead of continuing to go after each other, that's something. I think in the end the best course is to do what was mentioned above, to strengthen the severity of the consequences of violating the terms, and to strongly recommend to all the users involved in this matter to try and simply avoid each other as much as possible instead of looking for reasons to get someone blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I thought Plan A (prohibiting the banned users from reporting other banned users) clearly had more support from admins/uninvolved users than Plan B (strengthening the severity of the ban). Factomancer (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Beeblebrox, give me a break-you had no reason to block me and that's clear. Maybe I will submit soon a request for amendment in the AE. If you suggest that all of these proposals will be enforced the same way you blocked me, then I oppose them all from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do whatever you feel you must. As I have said again and again, my only interest is in putting an end to this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui

    Unresolved

    Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui to centralize discussion and to save space here on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp until this sections reaches the top of this page.MuZemike

    IP 86.155.74.236 is this troll again attacking the WT:CRIC page today. His normal IP range 88.108.0.0/18 was blocked for one month last weekend. Could someone please place a similar block on his new range? Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Afraid not. It's far too big a range to block, even if it were technically possible (which it isn't). And even if it was technically possible and wouldn't cause huge amounts of collateral damage, it's only a small range of BT Broadband, the biggest ISP in the UK, so the user could simply hop to another one of their ranges. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone should file an abuse report with the person's IPS. I have been seeing this vandal pop up time and time again here at AN/I. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting point. How do you do that? ----Jack | talk page 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the userboxes on User:Thundera_m117's user page may violate WP:BLP, WP:Userbox and WP:Userpage policies and so I would suggest that an Admin has a look at them.

    Shown at the bottom left-hand side of the user page, there is a userbox whose text reads: This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel. It contains photos of people who are presumably supposed to be self-hating Jews. One photo shows Noam Chomsky. I believe that depicting Noam Chomsky in this way is probably a violation of WP:BLP rules. A group of Orthodox Jews is shown in another photo. I believe that showing a group of Orthodox Jews in that way is divisive and therefore probably a breech of the WP:Userbox and WP:Userpage rules.

    A userbox shown in the middle on the left-hand side of the page carries the text: This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference. Although the article on Mahathir bin Mohamad certainly seems to indicate that he had very unpleasant opinions about Jews, I think that the way the userbox states that the speech was antisemitic may violate the WP:BLP rules.

    Other userboxes may be overly divisive. For example, one seems to be lumping Christian Fundamentalists and White Supremacists (and representing both with a Nazi swastika). Another states the user's belief that Hitler and Mohammed were the two most evil men. Another expresses the user's support for Obama's Immigration Reform as long as it does not include the influx of Muslim Migration to United States.

    On the 10th of April I left a message on the user's talkpage telling him that I thought that some of his userboxes may violate WP:BLP policy. Then, realising that the user does not edit Wikipedia regularly and believing that I had a responsibility to remove potentially libellous material, I edited Thundera_m117's userpage, leaving another note to explain what I had done. Predictably, the editor objected to my changes and reverted my changes. I then created a new section on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard to raise comments regarding the potential problems. The advice there was to create a new incident on the ANI noticeboard.

        ←   ZScarpia   01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify him, even if he rarely edits here. We recently had an issue with a user's userboxes here, so you might want to read up on that when you get the chance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified Thundera_m117 immediately after raising this incident. I don't personally have problems with the contents of the page, but I think that others might and that there are WP:BLP issues there which should be looked at.     ←   ZScarpia   01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (After many, many edit conflicts!) Wow! That's quite a collection of userboxes, but none of them really start ringing alarm bells. If it were up to me, I'd dispense with all political userboxes because I don't think they contribute to a healthy editing environment, but none of his are blatantly violating nay policy and he's entitled to express his opinions. All of them. If you can think of a viewpoint, there's probably a userbox for it! If any are of concern, try discussing the matter with him politely and, failing that, get community input at MfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a recent case where one reason that an editor was sanctioned was that he called an International Court of Justice judge an antisemite in talkpage comments. It seemed to me that implying that somebody is a self-hating Jew in a userbox is fairly equivalent. There have been cases where users have been ordered to change userboxes on the grounds that they were divisive, too.     ←   ZScarpia   02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the particular userboxes are templates that can be separated, MFD them. If not, I'd say list the whole page at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wdl1961

    Resolved
     – Indefinitely blocked.

    Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring, violating 3RR, by adding how-to instructions in Jump start (vehicle). User has refused meaningful discussion on talk page, and has shown no regard for WP policy, i.e. WP:NOTHOWTO. Edits: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] --Dbratland (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors should be required to read art. first and apply rules evenly.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The guideline you are using, WP:NOTHOWTO, says an article should "should not read like a "how-to" [...] manual". It does not say that an article should not contain any how-to instructions. The article Jump start (vehicle) does not in fact read like a how-to manual. Wdl1961 has merely added a brief section dealing with a fundamental safety issue, that contains some how-to information. But this does not turn the article, as a whole, into a how-to manual. There are other snippets of "how-to" information elsewhere in the same article. For example, the section immediately above the section Wdl1961 added says "A slave cable is plugged in to the receptacle on each vehicle, and the dead vehicle is started with the live vehicle's engine running." If no how-to instructions are to be permitted in Wikipedia, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be hobbled.
    Another example is the article on rip current. That has a section on escaping a rip current. This section also contains some how-to instructions. But the article, as a whole, does not read like a how-to manual, and it seem to me that the article would be incomplete, indeed irresponsible, if it did not include this section. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, other stuff exists. The point is to continue moving the how-to instructions away from Jump start (vehicle) and over to Wikibooks where it is most appropriate. The fact that some parts of the article, or other articles, deviate from policy is not a reason to insist on making it even worse. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is missing my point, which is that these articles do not "deviate from policy". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the policy that way is equivalent to saying you can put how to instructions into any article you like as long as there are other parts of the article that are not instructions. Is the only reason for having the policy to ensure that merely some of each article is encyclopedic in nature? --Dbratland (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in any guidelines is it said that you can't explain how something works. If that were the case, then you couldn't even write a coherent article on something like a fish hook. But what the guideline you invoked said, was that articles should not read like an instruction manual. Some articles require an explanation here and there of how things work. There is nothing unencyclopedic about that, so long as the article doesn't degenerate into a mere instruction manual. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think with something like this, which does carry an element of danger, Wikipedia should not be giving instructions, especially unsourced ones. If we have sources that indicate the correct way to jump start a battery, they should be linked on the page. That seems to be sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, safety instructions like these need impeccable sources, like the sources given for escaping a rip current. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to put a hatnote at the top of the page, rather than the bottom as guidelines normally indicate, saying Instructions on how to jump start can be found at Wikibooks? This would help clear up any confusion and direct those looking for help to the right place. And if there is nothing left to say on Jump start (vehicle) after all the how-to has been moved to Wikibooks, then the page should be deleted or merged.--Dbratland (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally disagree with such a hatnote, because it's not the job of Wikipedia to meet the needs of every user who's looking in an encyclopedia for information an encyclopedia shouldn't include. It seems to defeat the purpose of defining what does not fall within Wikipedia's mission and domain, if Wikipedia just links to all that information anyway, especially right at the top of the article. If users look for how-to information here and can't find it, they can reasonably be expected to figure out that there may be a better place to find that information than an encyclopedia. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block and ban on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE. This editor has a long record of edits that can best be described as "surreal", bearing little relation to reality and no relation to WP policy. I believe they have some past career experience with electricity power generation, but they still have a particularly unusual view of how some well-accepted engineering principles work. Their abuse of references is particularly problematic as they've often made edits that are just plain wrong, but aren't obviously so to an editor not skilled in the arts and assuming that a claimed cite will mean the same as that which a reference actually stated. "relational vibration" in engines was one of the worst examples of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read through their talk page, browsed through their mess of a user page, and looked at some of their edits, I'm inclined to agree with Andy Dingley that the competence of Wdl1961 is indeed an issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    for easy ref "Relational Vibration "

    copy from Talk:Four-stroke engine

    13 User:Wdl1961

    14 file

    14.1 Relational Vibration

    Wdl1961 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have jump-started a great many vehicles in my time, the content you added was borderline incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    first occurs before last like 1 ,2,many,many.

    Wdl1961 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, that sounds just like plain craziness. A certain soundness of mind is required to edit Wikipedia, and it does not seem to be present here. I was about to indefinitely block Wdl1961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this point, but Georgewilliamherbert was faster than me.  Sandstein  20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. I have left a message asking them to try and clearly communicate on their talk page the reasons for their communications issues. This is an indef block based on the communications and coherency issue - not a permanent block. They may have an issue they can resolve, or they can refocus on communicating coherently and succeed in the future. Any administrator who comes to believe that they are going to be able to edit in a productive manner and communicate in an intelligible manner going forwards is welcome to unblock without further notification to me. I don't know whether they will be able to do that, but one would hope that they can. They have been reasonably good about vandal fighting and I don't doubt their good faith, but there's something wrong here that good faith does not overcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet death rumour

    Today's unsubstantiated (to date) Internet death rumour is Richard Dawson, whose death is being reported all over the place but not by anyone reputable or reliable. (An unbylined obit was just posted to alt.obituaries by someone glorying in the name "Letstrolltonight".) Could people keep an eye on it tonight? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Phew, for a second there I thought you were going to say the internet was dead. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... does Usenet still exist? Maybe I ought to pop in and see if Alt.Music.Pink-Floyd is still around. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Was it 'Internet'?"
    SURVEY SAYS!
    BZZZZT
    But seriously, the rumour's running through Usenet with the grace and speed of a three-legged okapi, so look out. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just completed a news search, nobody in the mainstream press is reporting this, and I found several sites directly contradicting the report. Survey says: Living! hugs and kisses all around. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to http://www.richarddawsonlives.com/, his status remains "Stable, but boozy" caknuck ° needs to be running more often 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect Article Loop Problem

    Resolved
     – By 66.127.53.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Virgin Mountain seems to be stuck in an infinite mobius loop of sorts when I was looking at it via the Did You Know suggestions page. Anyone can figure out what the fark is going on? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed, I think. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deilami Language

    Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is nothing that administrators can do for you, you must reach a consensus with other editors of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have discussed but that user does not answer. She/he only reverts without discussion for two times. sicaspi (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be called edit warring, which should be reported here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Deilami_Language sicaspi (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately nobody answers there. --sicaspi (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It certainly doesn't help that you created a malformed report. At the top of the page, there's a huge link in a big box that says "Click here to add a new report". Doing so gives you a template that lets you fill out the info so that reviewing administrators can take action quickly. Otherwise, you're forcing people to dig up evidence for your claims, when you're supposed to be presenting that evidence up-front. -- Atama 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A real discussion is now happening at Talk:Deilami language. (What could be more fun than a hypothetical ancient language? ) I don't perceive that any admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edwin Black redux

    A question has arisen as to whether the links on Talk:Edwin Black, or any of them, by User:Saxstudio should be removed as unproductive/unuseful/outing. See previous discussion on that talk page and between User:Blaxthos and myself at my talk page. As I have been handling a long OTRS ticket with Mr. Black, I don't consider myself sufficiently uninvolved to decide this. Other opinions are invited. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the links pending the outcome of this discussion. They look to much like outing to me, and I fail to see the point of multiple links to various versions of the same article. I will add that I don't like ethnic categories and certainly not where they don't reflect anything in the article that makes the ethnic category meaningful or notable, so I don't blame Black for objecting to being categorised as an American Jew. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP welcoming sockpuppets

    Resolved

    iP 115.240.73.7 and IP 122.160.178.38 has been replacing {{blockedsock}} templates with welcome templates, including here, and here. I feel that this needs prompt administrator attention as I am concerned that the IP in question is actually a sockpuppet of the users he has been welcoming. Immunize (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) is bagging & tagging as necessary... — Scientizzle 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alteration of revision history of Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith

    I am concerned about tampering of the edit history of this article. I have suspected that User:Cuñado has had an undeclared conflict of interest in the subject of Bahai'sm and I had notice that this user had a large number of revision to the above article in his/her contribs. I wrote this message of the user's talk page and used a calculator to show that the user had made 833 edit using two different names (Cunado19 and Cuñado). I even copied and pasted the link to the edit statistics page here. As of this writing, the page shows only 55 edits for Cunado19 and 29 for Cuñado and shows a pattern of frequent editing with several gaps of up to 2 months where no edits are recorded. I know what I saw, and at Talk:Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith#What_happened_to_the_edit_history? I am being accused of having a bad memory and being discouraged from looking into the matter.

    I would like an administrator to look at the logs and see if this page has been recently altered. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can look at the logs: [66]. No revisions have been deleted, either here or at the other titles where this was once moved.--Chaser (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had looked at the public logs, at least for the main page. The revision history for Revision history of LGBT topics and the Bahá'í Faith is missing. I think this is why the edit count has changed. I would like this looked into by an experienced database admin. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The page got moved to a different title, as that link clearly shows. The edit history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&action=history. Woogee (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by single-purpose account

    A single-purpose account, A930913 (talk · contribs), has been trolling this deletion discussion, generally hectoring every user who comments in favour of deletion – which has so far been unanimous bar A930913 themselves – and getting passive-aggressive in response to criticism. Of their 20 edits, 18 have been based around the discussion; if a block is not in order, a strict warning for probably COI etc. almost certainly is. (User notified.) ╟─TreasuryTagpresiding officer─╢ 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a single purpose account is not a blockable offense, or indeed an offense at all. Neither is being passive aggressive, and that's if we accept your contention that this is even occurring, which I personally do not. Responding to multiple persons who hold a point of view contrary to one's own is how we build consensus. Yes, sometimes users take it too far and end up hurting their own cause as a result, but that also is not a blockable action. I don't see that this needs to be here at all, at worst this merits a WP:WQA thread, but my advice is to just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that something's slightly wierd here, but he's using policy based reasoning on the AFD for the most part, and is not being disruptive or abusive. I don't know if he's right or not, but whoever they are, they have a right to participate in a discussion as long as they do so constructively (and aren't already banned, and there's no sign of that). I think there's nothing here requiring administrator intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an SPA quite simply because I have made more than just these edits. (I made this account over a year ago with the future intention of just this?!) Not a troll either according to Wikipedia because my primary intent it to preserve the article, not to "provoke other users into a desired emotional response". "Passive-aggressive in response to criticism" where criticism is calling me a hector implying that I am bullying other users and then tells me to read a dictionary when I say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If A930913 ever decides to try a bid for adminship then this AfD may haunt them, but other than that I don't really see the problem. The discussion seems overwhelmingly supportive of article deletion, and I don't see a single policy being violated. -- Atama 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider edits like this to have no constructive purpose and to be purely disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, that looks like a pot and a kettle to me. jæs (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, however, you initiated that conversation by calling me a hector. I said that was a derogatory term, to which you said "go read a dictionary." I went on, in your link above, to bring proof to what I previously said, to which I still stand to be corrected. On the basis that you then went to move the said content into the (empty) discussion page, I can only assume you realised you were wrong and wanted to hide the evidence. --A930913 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was not wrong, and I did not hide the evidence; only a fool could seriously suggest that I did. If you are not prepared to edit Wikipedia constructively, you need to find other things to do with your time. ╟─TreasuryTagdraftsman─╢ 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TT, you are the one acting like a bully here, trying to intimidate a less experienced user. Back off already. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not bullying anyone. A39 is a troll operating a single-purpose account which is clearly not his first, who is hectoring every single editor who comments in a non-controversial deletion discussion. He is also edit-warring over the conduct, as well as sniping, hair-splitting and back-biting.
    I foolishly thought that the admins may like to intervene because he's behaving like a tosser. If not, fine; since the article is going to be deleted anyway, he's lost the "war" anyway, and his attempts to score minor debating points are failing and anyway futile. ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it was foolish of you to think that we would do something here on your say-so without looking into it and seeing that you are trying to get someone blocked just because you find them annoying. Calling them a "troll" a "dick" or a "tosser" isn't enough to convince an admin to block. You have not provided any diffs that show any kind of policy violation, and you have "hectored" them right back. No admin action is being taken because no admin action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Acting like a tosser is not a policy based reason to block somebody. I read through the discussion, and in my opinion his comments are extremely tame. This is definitely a case of WP:KETTLE... calling him a troll is not exactly civil is it, and nor is claiming his comments are "hectoring" (AFDs are a discussion, not just a vote). Now if the editor in question is believed to be a sockpuppet, that would be a different story, but so far no evidence has yet been produced for that. Therefore, there is no problem here for admins to solve. As I write, the article is headed for clear deletion, so it's not like his comments are swaying anybody. Aiken 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    POV/vandalism-only account

    Please intervene. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that User:AlgeriaLove is already blocked under WP:3RR, but I have opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlgeriaLove to deal with the rangeblock. You may wish to add additional comments there. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Computer1200, allegations of socking against me

    In an ongoing discussion at Talk:Asian fetish User:Computer1200 has now accused myself and User:Abductive of being socks of one another - see here and here. This is totally untrue, and is a clear breach of WP:AGF. (He has also contributed here on a related issue - see Wikipedia:ANI#User:Abductive_long_term_disruption.)

    Computer1200 is a single issue editor who has displayed an obsessive personal attachment to this article, and apparently also to Mail-order bride. He has aggressively reverted any changes which do not suit his agenda, and has said some very strange things in the article discussion. I'd be grateful if someone could hand out some kind of administrative ass-kicking, or at least tell him to mind his manners. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, I hope this one doesn't drag on. Computer1200's real problem is he can't believe that two people might hold an opinion which contradicts his own. His tone is quite unconstructive. As I have mentioned a while back in the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, I am not as concerned about passionate language as some people, but when the overall effect is to derail any discussion it goes too far. Also, even though one is not supposed to say it, I would have no problem with being SPI'd since I'm not sockpuppeting. Abductive (reasoning) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrative ass-kicking? Jeez, Hippo43, that's not very nice. But you need to mind your manners as well, as indicated by your history of getting blocked? Anyway, look - it's just that you two sound exactly the same. And I stand by all my edits, about which nothing is out of line at all, contrary to your opinion. I am just simply trying to make sure, along with Crossmr, that changes to long term content that has been the status quo for years are made in a systematic way. You have repeatedly and incessantly come in to the article, wiped out and transformed a whole section without discussion. That is against Wikipedia policy. Where you have tried to insist that your edits follow Wikipedia policy, you have not shown arguments that make sense. I apologize if that offends you, because it is in noone's best interest to offend, really. But in the end, I'm not sure why you both can't just take it to the discussion page, reason things through over time, and settle with compromise when appropriate. Although you will probably categorically deny it, that is really my posture concerning this whole incident. Anyone can look at the discussion to see where I offered a compromise solution. Computer1200 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troublemaker and legal threat

    Resolved
     – WP:BOOMERANG Tarc (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Woogee is a troublemaker sticking his nose into other's business in order to create drama.

    Woogee made a legal threat of slander on my talk page. That is blockable.

    Woogee tries to get Tarc mad at me by encouraging fighting. I will not take the bait and fight. But please have an administrator talk to Woogee and ask him to behave and not be like Child of Midnight, another person butting in, trying to create drama. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When were you planning on notifying me of this thread? DFTT. Woogee (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, this was this person's first edit to me, after I had asked him what I thought was a civil question. I wonder who this person was in their previous life. Woogee (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop this drama mongering. Just read or edit. Stop invading my privacy. Ok, I'll admit it, I was born in India and believe in reincarnation.

    Woogee is someone who stirs up trouble, baiting users to fight with each other and trying to fink on others. Just read some Wikipedia articles and when you have done that, edit a bit. There is no need to drama monger or to edit just for the sake of editing. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems as if Willie Sutton Bank President is an obvious sock of JB50000/Judith Merrick or any of the other socks used by this group. DD2K (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I regretfully agree. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is indefblocked as a sock / block evasion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. Seemed duck-ish, but the account had been sitting around for almost a year so I wasn't 100% sure. This is one seriously dedicated troll. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pvae

    Can someone keep an eye on Pvae (talk · contribs)? After two warnings, he is continuing to add inline references to songfacts.com, which is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "So I'm down / And so I'm out / But so are many otters..." --Sinatra. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we just blacklist the link? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the link is unreliable, that would seem to be an option. Although I wonder if it's like IMDB, where parts of it are permissible as sources and parts are not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We could always try it and see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlasdairGreen27 comment on my talk page.

    Sorry, but I am a fed up of this kind of comments directed towards me. Exemple [67] just today (I can kiss my what?). I had recently asked for you admins warning him about this behaviour... If some users can´t edit and discuss civily, they can possibly have a 2nd chance, but not even a warning from any of you? FkpCascais (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again with these nonsense reports. The only marginally rude comment I can find in your diff is "drag your sorry ass to AN/I". This imho is an understandable response to your continuous removal of User:AlasdairGreen27's posts [68] [69] [70], and your renewed attempts to insult our mental health (apparently, we're terrorists and "both need 'extra' work" [71]). AlasdairGreen27 informed User:FkpCascais that he may be reported for censoring other users' comments, it seems FkpCascais decided to "counter-sue".
    I'd also like to draw the attention of you guys towards the previous (ignored) reports about this person's disruptive behavior, WP:NPA violations and snide comments. [72] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked for 1 week for having said one bad word in foreign language. I had been extremely carefull since then, but I demand equal treatment. He had no need for saying that to me, and he has been disrespectfull with me continously, again, with no need for it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not banned for "one" word, and you have not been extremely careful since then. [73] And trust me, you do not want "equal treatment", people were blocked for far less than the obscenities you saw fit to share with the community ("shitter", "imbecile", "terrorist", "nazifyer", "go kick some rocks in your village", etc.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "trust you"? What is this, the joke of the month? So, "drag your sorry ass" is by you a "marginally rude comment"? Maybe I should say it to you to see how tolerant would you be. And why you all need to defend eachother everytime someone gets in trouble (everyday)? You (direktor) may personally have your reasons in your private continous war with Ragusino, and that had tired admins around here, but otherwise, you deserve to be extremely punished because your lack of civism has reached points I have never saw in nobody (and has nothing to do with the dispute we have, I promise to wait you, as I always did while you were several times blocked...). FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Trust me" is yet another English expression you've taken too literally. And seeing as how I warn several times and wait until you make at least four personal attacks before reporting I'd say I was pretty tolerant. AlasdairGreen27 and I are friends on Wiki, but that has little to do with the fact that you more than provoked the response you received. I am writing these posts because he's most likely offline and I don't want anyone here to take action without the full picture. It seems that's what you want, though, given your cleverly written report.
    I do not gave a "private war" with Ragusino. There is no Ragusino on enWiki to have a war with. He was a sockpuppeteer whom I've reported so he does not like me. I revert him because that is the proper and recommended thing to do with all posts of banned users. Plus, none of this concerns you in the least. Your own personal standards and perceptions of civility do not concern me, especially since your obscene comments don't say much about your own manners. Even though I may be a "disturbed imbecile shitting out my words". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever the reasons, he shouldn´t had said it. It has gone too far this time (I wasn´t even talking with him...and he attacked me with this) FkpCascais (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, incivility is wrong even if it is directed at a user who has been equally nasty? I can agree with that. You and Alasdair have both crossed the line. Consider yourselves warned to cut it out, now and forever, or you will be blocked. I suggest you drop this matter and that the two of you endeavor to avoid one another and don't comment on each other's talk pages, or the community is going to get very tired of these endless shenanigans and be done with one or both of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am tired of this, and I wan´t give up just because it´s the easieast solution. I had not said a bad word since the block I had two months ago (well this kind of insults, never). I had been extremely patient under extremely hard circustancies and I wan´t tolerate this behaviour. Please find this "equaly nasty" as you say, and where did I crossed the line? 2 months ago when I receved 7 days block? Not fair. That is not the case and stop being manipulated. Antecipating this behavior, I had been avoiding him for quite a while now, I had never commented anything on his talk page, and beside a short discussion that ended with him disrespecting me and WP, I berely had any contact with him. FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well, I think we're all pretty damned tired of this. Please take the advice offered to you and shut it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked FkpCascais for 24 hours, since I have read their response above as an indication to continue causing disruption by pursuing a matter when they have been advised that stepping back from the dispute was the most appropriate response. As ever, if any admin feels that I have been over zealous (or plain wrong) in my actions then they may be reversed without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Page protected. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was wondering If somebody could semi-protect this page there have alot of edits by IP users that are incorrect or disruptive. a few people have been reverting said edits however I don't believe much of the editing has been productive in the past few days. So maybe a protection would get a discussion going on the board.

    Thanks

    Krj373 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Take it to WP:RFPP, and see which page takes care of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, since they seem to have left for the night. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate use of user talk page by a blocked user

    Resolved
     – User reblocked

    This should be an straight forward. Since I am involved, I thought it would be best if someone else looked into it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorted, I think. Looks like I redundantly re-blocked them, though.[74] lol Figures. —DoRD (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks to both of you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a lifeline, should this editor decide to either mature or evolve. Rodhullandemu 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that he has self-reported his age as pre-teen, that might take awhile. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to stifle enthusiasm here, but I think constructive editing requires a level of apparent maturity and ability that isn't necessarily determined by age alone. However, if he's blocked indefinitely, there is no reason why he should not quietly return and be a constructive editor in the long term. I'm sure many young people have taken that lesson to heart. If he returns, and is disruptive, however, he'll be blocked again. Simples!. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate use of userpage(?)

    Not sure if this is the right place, but there is a user, Th33dit (talk · contribs), who (other than vandalizing some pages a few days ago) is doing nothing but collecting explicit images and writing weird porn-ified versions of Star Wars on his user page. I'm not sure if this is violating any rules/policies per se, so I thought I'd bring it to the attentions of others. //Programming gecko (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is entirely inappropriate. The user may be a troll and just trying to attract our attention, or he may be using it for more personal reasons. Either way the page is definitely in violation of Wikipedia:User pages. The page needs to be deleted (hopefully through a speedy). ThemFromSpace 05:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All those images, unless somehow encyclopedic, should be deleted as "not needed". - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just edit-conflicted with you. I was about to suggest they be placed in restricted use. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I said with the shower pics over at Commons. They disagreed with me on the grounds that they could be used somewhere. I really don't see all these images being used anywhere, as most of them aren't worth keeping. Things seem to always come back and meet you again on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, am I the only one getting the vibe that this person is likely a young boy who has just discovered women? Just a thought, but you never know on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-identifying minor

    Is the information here too much information for a minor to be putting on their User page? Woogee (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The e-mail address is a bit much and should be removed. No strong opinion on disclosing her age. ThemFromSpace 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is in a grey area as far as the need for oversight is concerned, as COPPA only pertains to those under the age of 13 (as it would need to be followed as the WMF servers are located in the United States and hence subject to Federal law). What may work here is someone to try and speak to this user privately (i.e. via email) about the dangers of releasing such information for the entire world to see. That way it won't seem as WP:BITEy but yet remain sincere and concerned. –MuZemike 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would say something, but since they live in LA County, it could be any number of 14 year olds. So it isn't like you could pick them out of a crowd like some other minor users have ID'd themselves. I would agree that the email address could be removed and oversighted, but others (young and old) have their email addresses on their pages. It is a risk you take. You could let the user know that they can link to their email address by listing the Email link we all use, so the actual address isn't visible. Just an idea. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the user of this discussion. Suggested that she asks here if she wants her e-mail removed and oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to notify her. Thanks to Mjroots for taking care of that. Woogee (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per this, I've removed her email address from the page, but it should probably be oversighted as well. —DoRD (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DoRD, seems to that ArbCom decision gives latitude to remove such information, it doesn't make it mandatory. Is there some peculiarity about this matter that makes it an "appropriate case" for removal/oversight? Not sure which way I feel yet, there are some very productive children on this site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think revision hiding would be fine here. The danger of having a publically viewable email address for a self-identified minor should be self-evident. –xenotalk 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't to me, given that anyone can get in touch of said minor without let or hindrance by clicking on "Email This User".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When using the internal email system, at least a record is kept. –xenotalk 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of sounding redundant, I have to agree with xeno. (I forgot about the alternative to oversight, though.) —DoRD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to argue the point, but this is a matter where we should have better guidelines than a very ambiguous ArbCom decision almost four years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a formal guideline to point to would be great (turning WP:CHILD into a guideline for example) but from what I've seen at ANI in the past, that ArbCom decision has been interpreted consistently which can be used to show how the community feels on the matter. As to this particular matter, I agree that the only troubling bit of information is the email address, all the other info is generic enough to not threaten the child. -- Atama 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Her date of birth though could, perhaps, be a problem. I won't remove it, but just saying. Aiken 17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hxseek personal attacks & request to lock article

    Saints Cyril and Methodius is a flashpoint for Slavic nationalists of various stripes who claim the brothers were Slavs despite over 20 scholarly citations from university press sources claiming they were Greeks. I tried to reach a compromise when an academic source was presented to the effect that their mother might have been a Slav and inserted a sentence to that effect in the article. However that was not enough for user:Hxseek who proceeded to launch a vicious personal attack on me as seen here. The fact that he self-reverted should be taken into account when deciding on the actions however. At any rate the article should be locked for editing by unregistered users as this will save a lot of time in fighting drive by vandalism by disgruntled Slavic nationalist editors.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) User:Hxseek has been notified.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In responce, Anothroskon (A) is intentionally twisting and manipulating the facts to disrupt the good will and cooperation of the article.
    (1) At no point have I stated that Cyril and Methodius (C & M) were Slavs, as I have reiterated numerous times in the discussion page. So this the first of A's false statements.
    (2) Instead, I have argued that there is a considerable body of reliable sources which state that C & M could have had a Slavic mother. A has been unleashing accusations that such theories are those of "Slavic nationalist crackpots". When even his fellwo Greek editors acknoweldged that there were western , reliable, uninterested sources which support such a notion, he has now twisted and lied to you, that he came to this "compromise". Nor is it unreasonable to include such information. Eg, if one looks at Nelson Mandela's article, there is a 3 paragraph discussion about the tribal affiliations of his family. No-one accuses the editors invilved there as being pan-Zulu's, or what have you. One would have thought that inclusion of such information is standard in the biography of a person's family life. Clearly, his personal agenda dictates a hard-line nationalist view that anything historically Byzantine was simply, and solely, ethnic Greek (when as far as scholars are concerned, there is not even arguement that this was not the case)
    (3) Leading to point 3 - clearly he is maing personal attacks by calling everyone whoc does not agree with his line of reasoning as a pan-Slavist.
    (4) His actions have been nothing but inflammatory and counter-productive. Rather, I have on numerous times tried to extend an 'olive branch' and tried to reach a compromise, and reassured him that I have never claimed that C & M were not Byzantines. An an academic level, I have tried to eductae this chap that being a "slav" and a "Byzantine" need not have been mutually -exclusive identities. One could be both, just like one can be an "Dutch-American", for example. Such a seemingly simple concept is apparently beyond the grasp of this poor fellow. Rather than opening up to such views, he calles me a 'racialist' for talking about races. When i clarified that "Slavs" and "Byzantines' do not constitute races, but are actually socio-cultural models, his simple responce was that I was again going on about race.
    (5) I recognized that the comment he has highlighted was not within the spirit of Wiki, henced I personally removed it immediately. However, he cannot prove that this was directed personally at hime. Secondly, he is no position to accuse others given his inlfammatory and PA behaviour. Case in point - his ongoing usage of "Slav nationalists".

    Hxseek (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. "this poor fellow." Yet more personal attacks. This sort of battleground editing, of which more examples are to be found in the Cyril and Methodius talk page is indicative of the level of behavior exhibited by slavic nationalists and the reason this article needs to be protected.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. In addition the compromise was effected by myself since I respecte academic sources and include information supported by them in the article most of which incidentaly was brought to its present form by me. The same cannot be said of either Hxseek's edits or those of the other slavic nationalists.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, it is Mr Anothroskon who has degraded the discussion to nationalism. My concern is with upholding the evidence and current academic theory. ANy reference that I have made to Greek editors is in idntifying certain trends which are prevalent and apparent to all users who visit any article who have to do with anythign Greek. I have not isolated them in my accusation, nor have I made blanket statements about them. In fact, this behaviour is not confined to non-academics, but state sponsored academians throughout Greece. This is not a figment of my imagination, but a trend which ahs captured the attention and criticism of several western scholars. . I invite hime to provide evidence of my alleged 'Slavic nationalist' behaviour : ...... Hxseek (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue here is not Hxseek's racialism and nationailsm but his use of foul language (wtf, shit, etc) and personal attacks and the need to protect this article from further vandalism.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that such an article attracts malicious edits from both sides, this is not only work of 'Slav nationalists'. You have grouped me with this group, but clearly have no proof. So now, your arguement rests on my use of 'wtf' and 'Sh*%', and alleged personal attacks on you - says the guy who has been less than truthful in this whole affair, and he who brandishes baseless claims of nationalism. Hxseek (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. So firstly I'm not sure that this is the best place to put this. Rather than putting this on ANI you might want to consider asking for mediation or even taking the issue to ethnic and religious conflicts where people would be better acquainted with this type of problem.
    Secondly, although personal attacks (which appear to be coming thick and fast here from all sides) are not ok, and it would be nice if an administrator would step in and give you all a slap on the wrist, no one seems to have done anything to warrant a block. Apologies all-round with promises to be more civil in future would pretty much solve this. You guys could even take a break and edit another article for a while. (Just a suggestion).
    As for page protection, looking at it there have been 2 cases of IP vandalism in the last two weeks and the article is very heavily patrolled so I don't think that's really needed. If you're suggesting that the article be fully protected I would argue that you're nowhere near that stage yet.
    Also, with regards to specific points of contention, why not file a request for comment? That way you could at least get a consensus with some uninvolved editors. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points sound reasonable enough. I will pursue these other avenues including a continued discussion with Hxseek and a request for comment. Thank you for taknig the time to comment on this.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much of an "incident", but would someone please take a couple of seconds and delete this obvious hoax: completely unsourcd article, zero Google hits for either of the alternate names for this creature, a sketch in the infobox by an "unknown artist" which on Commons is credited to the person who wrote the article (User:Justin.Gilette), etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A vandal full of zeal

    A rather irritating vandal has been active since yesterday. They create accounts, typically containing the word "zeal" (or "zeel"), and starts making edits most of which consist of adding a totally irrelevant "!" in seemingly random articles. Messages from bots and users to their talk pages are rudely reverted. A prototypical example is Zealking (talk · contribs). The vandal is nothing if not diligent, and can edit dozens of articles before being blocked, after which the show starts all over again with a new user name, sometimes within minutes. Any help would be appreciated. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged and bagged Zealott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few seconds ago. Can we get a CheckUser here to see if there's an underlying IP range? REDVƎRS 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And here comes Zeelking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Favonian (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To which I'd like to couple Orangepeelzeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also bagged and tagged. REDVƎRS 11:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and Zealmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LordZeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, he mutates: Enthusiasmguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Favonian (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    + Zealsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) REDVƎRS 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    + Supremezeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Orangezeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) REDVƎRS 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    + Avidone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Favonian (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    + Lakiez ng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) REDVƎRS 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    + ZealTheDeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) REDVƎRS 13:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obituarist

    I don't know if User:Obituarist is some kind of bot, but their only edits are to add a link to The Daily Telegraph's obituary to the articles of recently deceased people. They appear to have been warned several times, but continue regardless. Dancarney (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to notify the user of this discussion as required, but I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Thanks. Dancarney (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly not a bot, but a single purpose spam account, who will add an obituary link regardless of its use to the article. They follow the usual MO of spam accounts in that they never respond to concerns, so I suggest a block.--Atlan (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Telegraph obituaries are generally pretty good and useful to readers and editors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it looks like at least at some point (from the user's talk) that they were adding obits for people to articles on companies that didn't appear to have any connection to the deceased. In general, I think we'd prefer to incorporate information from the obituary into the article if possible rather than single-mindedly running around and adding external links. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Different people have different skill and interests in editing. I am not a fan of the "do it this way or not at all" approach. Obit links make information available to readers and editors, to do with as they will. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a good faith editor who's been template bombed, then we wonder why he has an attitude problem and won't bow down to our Level Four TemplatesTM. It appears only one person has actually had a conversation with him (User:Wine Guy, in February), and as far as I can tell, Obituarist hasn't added an obit to a non-biographical article since then. I don't think this is spamming, so there's no need to try to browbeat the guy. Just to see what would happen, perhaps drop by his talk page and politely engage him in a conversation of whether there's a better way. I have no opinion on whether as a general rule obits should be in the external links section, but they are certainly appropriate at least sometimes. This place is supposed to work collaboratively and incrementally, right? What's wrong with one person adding an obit in the EL's, and whenever another editor comes along who wants to incorporate the info into the article, they can, and then remove the link? --Floquensock (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second that. We throw AGF and BITE around all the time on this board, and yet we're all too ready to whack the block button when it comes to it. The edits, from what I can see don't appear to be disruptive and engaging somebody in conversation rather than templating them can do wonders and has been known to turn determined vandals into productive editors. Now of course, if the edits become disruptive, we can start thinking about blocks, but let's put our money where our mouths are and enact AGF and BITE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I third it. There's no reason to assume this editor is a "single purpose spam account". Note also that they have responded to concerns, although not necessarily agreeing with them. See this. All the articles listed were very rich in information, and do not indicate bad faith. Nor were they in such a quantity to be disruptive. Many times I'm come across good faith and potentially valuable editors who honestly thought the links would be helpful, and they are treated like criminals. One of the worst cases was the archivist of the New York Philharmonic who was threatened with blocking for adding links to their archives, which hold a wealth of information. Whatever happens, I hope trigger-happy spam fighters don't blacklist the links to the newspapers themselves. See also my arguments re the Prince of Austrurias Foundation here Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason to assume it's a single purpose spam account? They're called "obituarist" and all they do is add links to obituaries. Assuming they're a single purpose account is hardly a stretch. Yes, I was too quick to suggest a block as I see they actually have addressed concerns, but I hardly agree with you comparing that to treating them like a criminal.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be single-purpose, but it's not a "spam" account by any stretch of the imagination. And by "treated like criminals", I was referring to the way the New York Philharmonic archivist was treated and cautioning against doing it here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just the New York Phil we've treated badly, you can add Gresham College, the American Institute of Physics and the Encyclopedia of Alabama to the list. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsure why someone would be warned for linking to an obituary. The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, and certainly not spam. That the editor added it to multiple bios isn't a problem at all. We can just gently suggest they use a bot, if the edits are fast and numerous enough. Aiken 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange behavior

    This is very odd, but NoNewsToday has been repeatedly copying Svick's userpage, including barnstars to his/her own userpage. I deleted the first attempt, then recreated the page as a redirect to the talk page, then deleted it since it may have caused some confusion. We have warned this user multiple times to stop this behavior, but he/she has continued to copy either Svick's userpage or my userpage, again complete with barnstars and everything. A 3RR was placed for an unrelated reason. I'm not exactly sure what should be done here. It just seems incredibly odd. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be curious to know what NNT has to say about this. Have you notified him of this thread?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they properly attributing the copied material? If not, delete as a copyright violation. If so, remove references to the original user and leave it be (imo). –xenotalk 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying - not deleting. I can't do that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And it continues, see User:NoNewsToday. Completely disregarding all discussion and repeating the exact same thing is worrisome. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-deleted and user blocked for 24 hours. The fact they used the reasoning "Resolved discussion" for restoring the content, yet had infact made no effort to engage in discussions at all, gave me little reasoning to continue to assume good faith past this point. Hopefully they will actually read the warnings, our policies, and perhaps even respond now that they have been prevented from simply recreating the material after deletion. --Taelus (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. Probably could've justified it on the edit warring as well. -- œ 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure copying someone's user page is any kind of actual policy violation, there is no regulation of barnstars, they are handed out on whims. That being said someone who would edit war over their right to do that is almost certainly a troll up to no good. Good block. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Tried to move this to Mission Six, couldn't because " the new title has been protected from creation". I find there was a Mission six deleted A7 in Nov 2008. Not sure if it's the same topic. Could an admin check that, and move this page if appropriate? PamD (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Mission 6 was also A7'd in Nov 2008. PamD (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Must have been a bug, there is nothing in the protection log. I went ahead and moved it, but you might want to try and find some better sources or it may get deleted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Routerone

    This incident covers etiquette, edit warring, and battleground issues so I'm reporting it here instead of at a narrower-purpose noticeboard.

    Routerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in 3RR violations at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon (see page history for evidence), incivility at User talk:Duke53 ([75]), and in general has exhibited an ongoing battleground mentality regarding the subject of Mormonism (see user's contribs). User is also reverting other editors' complaints regarding them on noticeboards ([76]). Although my religious sympathies align with those of Routerone, I find their behavior inappropriate. I think Routerone does not exhibit the degree of emotional detachment from the subject of Mormonism to constructively contribute to articles or discussions surrounding that topic. I'd like some uninvolved admins to have a look to determine if some sort of sanction is warranted -- whether a stern warning, topic ban, or limited-duration block. Thanks! alanyst /talk/ 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]