Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.

Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Wikipedia tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.

Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? lifebaka++ 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Wikipedia's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them. How about an WP:RFC/U? lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable? WilliamH (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can one not use the term "holocaust denier" when dealing with the article holocaust denial? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.

You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward[?]" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.

WilliamH wrote: "How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.

I'm going to bed. -Stevertigo 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the thread title was meant to be benign. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I always AGF, but I would still prefer that the thread title be changed such that not even the slightest degree of slander remain. -Stevertigo 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better. lifebaka++ 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is rife with assertions of bad faith. I don't believe they all need pointing out. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor at best - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example [1]. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That this was recently archived yet is on this very same, not yet resolved issue, is an indication of the level of disruption. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable. I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot. Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior. For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in my log. It's a bit fluid and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.

By the way, I appreciate the title change. Now any slander therein is nearly unperceptible, and nowhere near as obvious. -Stevertigo 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka didn't mean "gone" as in "retired" - s/he means that you aren't beyond hope, and that you've been learning and improving by mistakes. Sorry, that was a confusing sentence, could have raised all kinds of hell. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the WP:V and WP:NOR policies have made little, if any, impression on him.

Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, and decided to insert his own confusing digression on whether or not the National Socialist party were really Socialists. Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in.[2][3] When defeated, he drops it on the Talk: page, without any accompanying commentary.

Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a Holocaust comprehension article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the reductio ad Nazium article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ad Nazium term.

So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was missing in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?

It strikes me at the very best "counterproductive" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?

"Disruptive editing," indeed. -Stevertigo 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources. Then, you write based on the sources. Then, you cite the sources you used. The issue appears to be that you are not beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text. Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view. Please find sources as a first step.

Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, WP:V stipulates that any unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.

The new title you chose is... Odd. The first title was far more neutral. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.

Just to forewarn you, when someone informs The Grand Inquisitor that you were just being sarcastic, he'll probably issue a standard proclamation and declare you "thou troubler of Wikipedia" as well. -Stevertigo 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a troll who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs. This is the paradigm for how he operates and it has two major components. First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept. In the case of the name Ehud, he went so far as to do this with letters of the alphabet. It is true that Arabic is a semetic language. But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews. Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this. As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means. If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living. This would be a violation of WP:NOR were it not just so ridiculous on its face. Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo thinks a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article. This of course never stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews. Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial." What do these things have in common? They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them. His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism. He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia. But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage. I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Wikipedia, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.

Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is not a personal attack as such. It did not violate any content policy. But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate? This is Stevertigo in essense. It is why he is a disruptive editor. That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense. In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay." The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors. That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor. But we have a policy, WP:DE that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee! Folks, this is precisely why we have a DE policy. Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance." That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms! I kid you not! It is amost funny). But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say "that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!" Tarc (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about? Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I recently attempted to warn Stevertigo on Talk:Holocaust denial that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him ([4], [5], [6]). I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I deplore this dogpile.

  The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people. But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting his own views. Wikipedia allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources. Not our own ideas, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.

Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?

Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic[sic] language." - Actually, that's not accurate.

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Wrote some responses. May submit later.

Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:[7][8]. I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything. In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism." Fair enough. On this I agree fully. Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any. Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are his i.e. an editor's). In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews. Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews. Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism." Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research. Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research. In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite." I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic. In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs. I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred." And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic. As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term. Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs. I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff. Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system. The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.[9]. It is pure crap. Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views." It is his bullshit. I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(continued)

Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Wikipedia. That I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided that link because another editor explicitly requested I provide the link ...I explained this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.

So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.

And what is the case you are trying to make here? That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a number of occasions). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them? Do explain.

Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.

Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that "car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts." Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that an article like "cheesing" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese", is interesting. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term incorrectly. My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect. But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit. The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is not pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things. We went over this six years ago. I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV. Do I want you banned? Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people. Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake. You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar. I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative). Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people! When my "argument" with you was my insistence that you provide a source! If this is not trolling, what is? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never promoted trinitarianism. You are just making stuff up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at Talk:Holocaust_denial. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite WP:LEDE/WP:LEAD. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE is higher, relevant conceptualization.

Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so. Also, if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why. There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.

The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to unroll them, read them to people, and gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.

I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv[ity]," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context, and due in no small measure to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"deal with William". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called real life, which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.

Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Wikipedia, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as Holocaust denial, as they should be, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR and (by his own admission) cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Wikipedia if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have picked a far better example, Steve. Cheesing has absolutely nothing to do with cheese, unless one has a very strange definition of cheese. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are entirely related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.

Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is so far removed from the term "The Holocaust" that no mention of the latter is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like matters of subjectivity in its definition.

The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews. In fact, far from it. But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ... We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Wikipedia like his own little ball of yarn. I'd rather we didn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well at least you're not mad. (Or else not showing any outward signs thereof). Nice talking with you. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, Salvation needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.

As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as comprehension, which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources at all is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).

With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Steve, if I had embraced the part of anthropology that had embraced postModernism, I'm sure that I would understand what you had just written. But, unfortunately, I embraced something much more wholesome. I like User:A little insignificant's suggestion: "I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations." Not much fun, maybe, but helpful... --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthon. And Steve, if I'm getting this right, all you want to do is... include a mention that the term "Anti-semitism" can mean different things? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, i think it's the different meanings of the "holocaust" that steve wants to note. untwirl(talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:DHawker

I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).

User:DHawker was placed up for discussion for block evasion [10]. He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block.[11].

Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.

The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK -- let's keep our terminology clear. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, and exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ten-cent piece once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)

I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at Colloidal silver and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? Franamax (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.

While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.

I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the talk page will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to improve other areas of Wikipedia. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.

I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. DHawker (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that more eyes on colloidal silver would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to promote an agenda at the expense of the site's basic policies is a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.

Regarding a path to redemption, I would strongly recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Wikipedia works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check, the consensus was to extend the block, which was done. ME then revisited this closed issue and added their own additional 2 cents to the block. I'm glad wikipedia's justice system is as corrupt and wishy-washy as Canada's or the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your views on how DHawker should be sanctioned, but to say that Matthewedwards added his "2 cents" to the block is out of line and fundamentally flawed. The matter was not "closed" after the block extension (which incidentally, was enacted promptly to reflect the timing issue). Even if the discussion was archived by a bot, the community consensus was not limited to extending 1 block. Effectively, Matthewedwards enacted the community consensus which remained unenacted, and saved me having to make a formal call to the community to do its job (by enacting what was unenacted). So the fundamental problem here is not with the system, but rather regrettably, your own understanding - you are responsible for opening this thread when you decided to voice your additional "2 cents" about an action that was, and remains, approved by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the community of 3 people. You have a grand understanding of a jury. Why is it that 3RR on any non-fringe topic warrants at best a 24hour block, yet the second its on a fringe theory, the "community" (Aka the several banded editors that disapprove of fringe theories) makes all effort to expel them when they have done nothing worthy of that. Your community consensus is a three person brigade. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton

Rodgarton (talk · contribs)

This user, a single purpose account promoting Parapsychology, engages in egregious abuse of sources. He came to my attention when I was looking at a long section he added to Parapsychology, a featured article, which contained many surprising claims. When I checked the sources, I discovered a pattern of consistently stating things that went far beyond what the source justified.

The clearest example is probably one where he said two completely different things in different articles, with the same source. One article contained information that completely blew the claim he made in the other out of the water - and he edited the one that showed the other claim false first.,

26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change

Previous

Rodgarton's edit

The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. [...]

The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. . However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem).

The claim he makes there is probably false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, and lists numerous examples that certainly sound comprehensive, including Pearson's. His cite for the claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, he went on to make a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology, which directly conflicts with this. [Emphasis mine]:

Parapsychology, 9 August. [12]

“ [...] A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the first meta-analysis in the history of science; [...] ”

The source for that is: Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (pp. 1-13). Vienna University. I'm afraid I don't have access to obscure conference papers, but the title's addition of "comprehensive" would cast doubt on whether even that paper makes the claim he used it for.

The large table near the top of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1 has full details of a section I analysed in full, and (since he edited it to add such discussion) various responses by him. Some of his points are false, some of his have a grain of truth but are overstated, and others may be true, but cannot be backed by the sources he claims for it, for instance, he uses primary sources to make claims for the historical importance of themselves. I would encourage other people to check other things he has created for accuracy to sources, and see if the results match.

This user has other problems, for instance, his civility issues and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT make him pretty much impossible to talk to. He has also been revert-warring all attempts to fix the articles he created, by me or others. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Step one should be a temporary page ban from the article itself, I would say. The novel synthesis issues and the revert warring make that plain to me. Does anyone disagree? Guy (Help!) 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd probably encourage a topic ban, not just the one article. Check his recent history, in which he reverts all attempts to clean up several articles he made. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that he tends to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with him, calling us "pseudo-skeptics" and making statements assuming bad faith.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully and openly invite reviewers of the above missives to review the edits and discussion of the cited articles. There will be found relatively little from these complainants apart from rapid-fire put-downs, and mostly statements of opinion given up in Edit Summary. Conversely, I have continually opened and invited discussion of all and any substantive issues they would raise; this includes discussion of (autonomous and un-discussed edits of) articles on Displacement (parapsychology), Joseph Banks Rhine, Rene Warcollier, Pavel Stepanek and Joseph Gaither Pratt. I would also invite reviewers to give close attention to the continued efforts by the above editors, acting in a league (cf. the close times between even just the above edits) to eradicate a source of information from WP that conflicts with the position they characteristically advocate. I have continually sought to discuss the issues, without reference to any individual, and always referring to these complainants in the third person, while being obliged by them to address their opinions, offered to us as self-evident fact, of personal reliability. I should think that such a personally targeted campaign, of which the above is but the latest issue, should be beneath the respect of WP editors. I continue to evince a keen intention to discuss the substantive issues, whenever the above complainants offer a point of fact rather than ad hominem slight. --Rodgarton 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a reason why your signature doesn't link to either your userpage or talk page? Syrthiss (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of Rodgarton's NPOV issues: [13]. The only edits not by him have been to add a POV tag, which he reverted. [ETA: It's been edited since then, so I've changed the link to before the editing. --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served}] It's pretty much a straight out POV-push, no criticism whatsoever appears, though he does use fringe sources to pre-emptively attack Martin Gardner, without stating Gardner's criticisms.

On the talk page, he writes:

“ The tagger offers the adjectival slight of "fringe sources," "fringe journal," and so on, as sole justification for her/his slight against the information as "biased." There is no point of discussion offered in such adjectives; we can not reasonably be invited to simply juggle adjectives about the sources of knowledge in the encyclopedic representation of knowledge. [...] ”

In other words, he rejects WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and sees no problem with writing an article entirely from the perspective of the proponents of a fringe theory. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He just broke WP:3RR at the parapsychology displacement article. Will put up a report in 15 minutes, got things to do at the moment.Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's at 5 there, 4 at Joseph Banks Rhine, and the displacement one came after I gave him a polite warning about the Joseph Banks Rhine problem. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well just to dot the T's and cross the I's I'll give him a second warning. But I can't edit the article any more today so if other interested eyes could take a look, perhaps contribute on talk that would be a good thing.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NM, he's already been blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rodgarton's archaic style of prose and inability to comprehend WP policies could indicate that English isn't his primary language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively it could simply mean he thinks using a thesaurus will make him sound more informed. I would, however, prefer not to speculate.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like he's someone who is not aware of this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

outdent) Still wonder why this user will not use four tildes when signing for easy(ier) navigation. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user 24 hours for edit warring, but given the above issues, I think a longer duration may be in order. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we move this to WP:AN, to give us a bit more time to sort through before it's archived? We probably shouldn't do anything until Rodgarton can defend himself. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my proposal for a temporary topical ban; the issues need in the first instance to be kept out of mainspace. If he continues to make problems through talk page interactions then some other sanctions may be necessary, but I would think a topic ban of some sort would gain consensus based on what I've seen of his editing history. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy, if you imposed a topic ban of any sort, there would be no objections from me (or anyone else for that matter). That said, I agree with Juliancolton - a longer block (a week?) would be more useful as a temporary measure to minimise the overall disruption he's caused/causing, and it also works to give the community some time to consider where to go from here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining the most pervasive and permanent of bans will not surprise me, and I can welcome it; just, please, thereupon, cull all my contributed content; WP is not fit to host it. I have, in any case, long resigned from contributing any substantive new content on WP, and have, without contest, allowed several sections of information I contributed to be culled from the articles in which they were offered. I have elsewhere expressed the evident futility of representing, in WP, academic research on so-called "psi phenomena." WP editors seem to prefer offering a Readers' Digest type of authority on the research, while ornamenting it with ad hominem slights, trivialization, marginalization, and so on, as gleaned from the popular reviews by career-debunkers of the field. Fans of the latter pulp too easily abuse - apparently with administrators’ license - the policies and procedures of WP, such as by teaming up to make multiple redirects from, and to routinely cull, anything that might seem to objectively offer a positive interpretation of the research. For the information which is in dispute here and which is cited against me in this campaign is precisely of that quality; I will discuss particular items below, but would here note that it is the culling of information of this type that is the objective of the above complaints; not "goodwill" nor the policy of assumed good faith nor the fair treatment of so-called "fringe" issues behind which these campaigners hide. The reasons given for these culls are rationalisations after the fact, as is obvious from the fact that they are only given when pressed; and that no discussion of the substantive points I raise in the defence of the information are ever addressed; they are simply ignored, or responded to with non-sequiteurs, adjectival and emotive magnification of opinionated claims, ad hominem slights; in fact, the full repertoire of crooked thinking represented in Sagan's well-known "baloney-detection kit". The latest offering of the latter we see in the above comments that I fail to understand English, or that I write from a thesaurus. While members of the editors' club will be amused by these jokes, they are plainly silly, and demonstrate the poor level at which the issues my contributions raise are discussed. I mistook WP as a site for the representation of academic information in an academically responsible manner. Finding only an infantile level of discussion, and a low, coffee-table criterion of authority, I have, at some points, offered to engage at that level; I no longer see value in even these exchanges with the perpetrators of such silliness.

A few further points on the specific issues raised in the above complaints.

+ re development of meta-analysis in early psi research: It is not a claim I make that is offered for dispute, but a thesis authored by a widely published authority on meta-analysis, H. Bösch, on the origin of meta-analysis. The complainants are here offering original opinion in place of the researched opinion of a real-life authority. In any case, I some time ago made clear I would not seek to restore the information I offered, so its leading representation in this missive as some kind of evidence of unreliability and unco-operativeness can not be seriously taken. Also, that information was subsequently restored by another editor (doubtlessly again culled by the above campaigners), so its citation as evidence of disruption by myself is just blindly repeated and unexamined opinion.

+ re contributions of psi research to other research disciplines; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1. This is another of the sections I have allowed to be obliterated, without any effort at its restoration by myself at all. Still, it is cited as evidence of disruptiveness. Here, the culler is one who seems to believe that s/he has discovered some gross unreliability in my representation and citation of two papers, and that this has merited the entire blanking of the information. I have shown how my representation of these articles, and this information, is consistent with (and even more softly stated than) its representation by others; and yet the culler is permitted to freely repeat her/his scurrilous story - based, in any case, only upon her/his personal interpretation of the information in those articles; and this opinion is apparently further blankly followed, without examination, to claim my "disruption" on WP.

+ re replication of J. B. Rhine's findings by other researchers at other institutions: this information is readily found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources, such as [Mauskopf and McVaugh (1980). The elusive science: Origins of experimental psychical research. Baltimore, ML, US: Johns Hopkins University Press]; I have provided references to original papers of just a few of these studies, and to a review article published in the J. Communication. Still, the information is repeatedly culled by the present campaigners as a whole - with specious arguments, if any, for doing so. How can this be supported without question? Evidently it conflicts with the commonly peddled pseudo-skeptical myth that "there has never been an independent replication of any of Rhine's findings," and similar. For that reason alone, it seems, the information is repeatedly culled, and its restoration on WP is blankly drubbed as "disruption".

+ re the displacement effect: This article has long ago been the subject of an Afd deletion debate; the result of the debate, in which I did not at all participate, was "keep". It seems this article has recently come to the attention of the campaigners responsible for the above-mentioned culls, and they have sought to delete it indirectly, by redirection to the parapsychology article, and blanking of the article itself. Presumably this is because the article on an ostensible psi phenomenon contains references to its discussion in mainstream journals, by mainstream psychologists and statisticians. I would have thought that the independent notability of the article had already been demonstrated by the failed AfD request. When pressed to justify redirection, we are only told by the above campaigners that it "SHOULD" be so; i.e., we are given blank assertion without any basis for debate. Plainly, embedding this information in the parapsychology article would be like demanding that an article on operant learning or any other psychological process should be embedded within the article on psychology. Still, my attempts to simply restore this information are here dubbed as "disruption". Compare this decision and description to the fact of information that I provided within the parapsychology article on objective surveys of academic opinion on parapsychology: that was actually shunted off to an obscure article of its own, presumably because it might be seen as reflecting too positively on the field, and in preference to subjective picks of qualitative opinion by WP editors themselves. There is no consistency in these decisions at culling and redirection apart from the motivation to obliterate anything that smells of academic respectability for psi research.

+ other articles or sections of articles that I have authored have also come under the attack of the present campaigners. The article on Joseph Gaither Pratt has been repeatedly tagged for one or another reason; as I plainly argue the insupportability of the tag, another is attempted. The same occurs for the article on Warcollier. I should point out that I was responsible for the information within the parapsychology article on the definition of psi by Thouless and Wiesner, and Rhine's adoption of the term; this should also now be culled, let us say, on the basis that it only cites primary sources, or that it has been authored by me, and so merits immediate description as "disruption".

+ re drubbing of references to the J. of Parapsychology as "fringe" – a major point of attack offered by the above campaigners; but see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#Citing_the_Journal_of_Parapsychology

Generally, it is charged that I exist on WP only with the interest of promoting psi research. That would be quite a poor reason to disparage an editor, even if it were true, given that there are no doubt many personal, extra-encyclopedic objectives that WP editors work through. What is true of my objective is that I have sought to supplement what appears to be mostly populist and unrepresentative information with information that is more authoritative and academic, and more objectively limited. I would not be at all familiar with this information if I were not myself a skeptical reader of it; my skepticism has taken me much further into the literature than I had originally envisaged, and were I simply a promoter of psi, or some kind of fanatical "believer," I would not have bothered to read so deeply in the field, and to find out what academics in various disciplines have made of the field. I have not been content to read only the pseudo-skeptical and populist "scriptures" authored by Hansel, Alcock, and so on (pseudo-skeptical, because they denigrate, deny and campaign against scientific enquiry; and reviews of their work have repeatedly found them to be unreliable). Rather than spoon-feed readers of WP with personal samplings from these poor critiques, I thought it would be useful to represent well-credentialed academic information on this research for readers of WP to calmly assess for themselves. So I have cited information not only in the journals of the field, but mainstream ones including Nature, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of the Am. Statistical Association, J. of Philosophy. These of my contributions have included what might be seen as negative estimations of the research; e.g., I originally authored the article on the apparently fraudulent Samuel Soal; I included Soal's critique of the studies of Warcollier; I added information to the article on precognition on fraudulence in the research domain; I included information on the problem of statistical artefact in demonstration of the displacement effect; I included description, as much as seemed academically defensible, of critiques in the article on Pavel Stepanek; I added information on the critique of popular claims of retrocognition.

Naturally, there will be contention as to how this information is represented; that is the nature of reading academic sources; it is all interpretation. The challengers of my interpretations and representations could well have elected to improve the representation of this information in virtue of their own interpretations and their experience with the encyclopaedic form. Instead, they have been motivated to cull it all, and to use my offer of the information as a pretext for a giggling campaign of denigration and slander; to blankly reject all such information.

I would offer in summary that the editors of WP, as represented in the current missive, maintain an infantile version of a pre-1980s approach to assaying psi research, showing themselves to be simple disciples of long ago peer-discredited and pulp pseudo-skeptical scripture. In chiming in with the phrases of "distortion," and so on, and showing no evidence of independent examination of the more or less serious and trivial opinions raised in this notice, the administrators of WP risk betraying themselves to be similarly limited and abjectly motivated.

BTW, although a swansong this might necessarily be, such is not my own intention. In order to help my culling stalkers in their campaign, let me note that, should I be permitted, I will probably and shortly add to the article on Warcollier, given there some expressed requirement for further sources, and that I will also seek to contribute on some topics more strictly related to my abiding psychological research interests in signal detection and visual recognition, semantic memory, and the relative consciousness of perception.

Oh - as to the silly slight about linking via the signature, such is what is offered when one uses the "Your signature" button in the toolbar above the edit textarea. Please offer a more serious effort at denigration if you wish to stoke my fanciful prose. --Rodgarton 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of eliciting your "fanciful prose" I wanted to point out that the request that you use four tildes to produce a linked signature line was not a "slight". Rather it was a politely phrased request that you adhere to the normal courtesies the rest of the Wikipedia community generally follow. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(delayed by edit conflict) An article not mentioned so far is Precognition. There are the same issues of clear agenda-pushing (privileging fringe sources, even pre-prints, over mainstream scientific sources) and incivility. That article is now actively misleading about its topic (the definition of precognition in the first sentence clashes with that in the sources, but Rodgarton claims that his interpretation of one source wins out). Since he's reverted the addition of sourced mainstream material,[14] I can see that trying to fix the damage, while he and I are pretty much the only ones editing the article, is going to be lead into an edit war. I've discussed at great length with him on Talk, but he just throws up great walls of incoherent text and shows little interest in following WP policy (e.g. repeatedly arguing that Wikipedia is a source for itself [15]). It sounds like this is a repeating pattern of behavior across multiple articles in a single topic (and the Parapsychology FAR).

The above comment by Rodgarton is yet another example of how his descriptions of his behaviour differ wildly from his actual behaviour. He describes himself dispassionately adding encyclopedic facts while his biased opponents use bad faith, non-sequiturs and personal attacks, but as already mentioned in this discussion, it's not hard to verify that it's the other way round. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need saying, but Rodgarton's above claim of a "swansong" isn't credible. He has previously said goodbye to the Parapsychology article in his customary style, writing "I will better expend my energies communicating this travesty rather than contributing to this twisted forum. ... Sufficient for Wikipedia, but not to the real world, to which I return, pleased to see you and other WP editors picking self-congratulatingly through the debris thereof." [16] [17] but that was back in early August. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How telling that the only response to my critique of these flawed missives involves raising "an article not mentioned so far" . The campaigners have to shift the debate in order to maintain it, rather than to focus on the substantive issues of debate; as I have already noted as their tactic, and as we are granted by MartinPoulter with another example. Also, even in raising this "not mentioned so far" issue, we are only treated to further ad hominem slight: the bulk of the complaint concerns how "he describes himself ..." and the "claims that his interpretation wins out," and how "his behaviour differ [sic] wildly [!] from his actual behaviour," and so on, together with bald misinterpretation of my final paragraph. Moreover, I have myself already raised the very article MartinPoulter claims is "not mentioned so far" - perhaps s/he needs to actually read what s/he is instinctively attacking. Then let her/his points be raised in the context of the article in question itself. My above response to the above missives remains to be addressed in any even superficial detail. --Rodgarton 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} As a friendly suggestion, perhaps if you were to respond concisely and in clear language your words would not be open to misinterpretation. Also when attempting to insert [sic] into a quote in order to suggest the presence of a grammatical error it is best not to modify the framing of the quote in order to make the grammar appeared flawed... especially when the source text is available directly above. It doesn't harm MartinPoulter at all but it does tend to affect how others may see you.Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more focus on triviality, and no attention to even one substantive issue. Even the trivia is quickly settled: [sic] does not necessarily connote grammatical error; it warns that the quoter has not misquoted what might be passingly interpreted as a grammatical error. If the complainants must get emotive, I pray they will do so on something worth commenting upon; we all get rather sleepy when meriting such trivial and insubstantial responses with a reply. --Rodgarton 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that one of the major concerns we have brought up with you and then here about you is your tendency to play fast and loose with WP:CIVIL your framing of a quote in a manner designed to make it seem grammatically incorrect, including placing [sic] at the point of the artificial error is, in fact, relevant. You routinely attempt to suggest that the opinions of others hold less merit than your own, for instance calling me a pseudo-skeptic because I doubt the veracity of para-psychological research which has suffered from a well documented history of flawed design, credulous investigators and outright frauds.

Another example is when you try to suggest that others are "slighting" you when they request you sign your posts with four tildes for ease of linking. Then there are examples such as here where you declare your opinion regarding the assumed bad faith of editors who make edits you disagree with.

And let's not forget about this where you called me irrational. And, on the same talk page, here where you call an editor you don't name "specious" for putting a POV tag on an article which you admit to be biased to a specific POV in the same comment.

WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. I am beginning to suspect you may not understand why these examples (which are not by any means an exhaustive list) could be seen as violating that policy. Regardless of WP:CIVIL repeat attempts to marginalize the opinions of other editors does not strengthen your arguments and only leads to discussions such as this one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment demonstrates the failure to distinguish between a characterisation of an argument and an attack on a person. What I have dubbed "irrational" and "specious" etc., as above, characterises, in each case, the quality of argument; it says nothing about the communicator. This is an elementary point of psychological development; the complainant might wish to consult Jean Piaget on child psychology before s/he again advertises this cognitive failure. Oh, here is the effect of four tildes: Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Here is the effect of the "Your signature" button: --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Surely this covers enough trivial points, and the complainants can offer by now a substantive point of debate. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that paragraph of my comment, precognition had not been mentioned. Note, Rodgarton, that my comment appeared after yours because of edit conflict. Your comment about the article suggests that you've improved it. My comment argues that you've damaged it and that you are using a pattern of behaviour to block improvements, similar to your behaviour that has been complained about in other contexts. I hope the admins take more serious action than just the 24hr ban, since I don't think any number or warnings are enough to get you to follow the policies of WP. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion reigns for expression in place of substantive argument! Please note that I have not even attended to the page in question - precognition - at least over several weeks. You are free to trash it as you will, and need not fear, as I have made clear, any attempt by me to maintain its responsible and informed representation of information. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, folks, you have a week off, I have blocked Rodgarton because his energetic pursuit of his POV is causing trouble in mainspace and using up too much of everybody's time in talk space. Please work out what sort of restriction might work, and help him if you can to understand what he needs to change. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion A relatively long-term topic ban to parapsychology related articles and a strong suggestion he seek tutoring in order to learn how to properly comport himself in talk page discussion would be what I would suggest. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can agree, though it'd need to be interpreted broadly, as he has a certain tendency to making articles into a WP:COATRACK, e.g. meta-analysis and his attempts to make extensive claims for parapsychology there. Let me quote the claim made there:

“ However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates.[3] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). ”

For such a ridiculously specific claim as the text in bold carves out - and I, for one, don't see how that excludes, say, Pearson's study of Typhoid in 1904 - that is a ridiculous amount of undue weight. It's all the more awful in context: It was the only meta-analysis to have any description whatsoever of what it studied. Here's the whole paragraph with this inclusion:

“ The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis.[1][2] However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates.[3] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). Although meta-analysis is widely used in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine today, a meta-analysis of a medical treatment was not published until 1955. In the 1970s, more sophisticated analytical techniques were introduced in educational research, starting with the work of Gene V. Glass, Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter. The online Oxford English Dictionary lists the first usage of the term in the statistical sense as 1976 by Glass.[4] The statistical theory surrounding meta-analysis was greatly advanced by the work of Nambury S. Raju, Larry V. Hedges, Harris Cooper, Ingram Olkin, John E. Hunter, Jacob Cohen, Thomas C. Chalmers, and Frank L. Schmidt. ”

So, yeah, I think were going to need a fairly broad-based topic ban to effectively keep him from causing problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree He may cause trouble on pages that are tangentially related to parapsychology, such as pages on statistical tools and pages on the various flavours of psychic.Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Block for NPA violation by Ched

I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and notified the editor here. While calling another editor a nitwit is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see here). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I would have sent both of them to the corner for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• No cause for concern - your actions seem fully justified and reasonable. I'll be around for a few hours so I'll keep an eye on it. Manning (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified User:JohnHistory of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — Ched :  ?  11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely unacceptable comments, block is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several long-term problems here. The first is, of course, the ease with which Calton reaches heatedness in an argument. One of the participants on User talk:JohnHistory was ObserverNY (talk · contribs), who appears only a few sections above on this very page. So that's a second long-term problem. Then there's the subject matter, which is United States politics, the extreme partisanship and battlegrounding which some U.S. editors present, with regard to which, is a third long-term problem. Then there's the classic thinking that everyone holding a contradictory position is one person. That's a long-term problem outside of Wikipedia, and a long-standing one on Usenet, and a fourth long-term problem here. Then there's repeated "would you personally do this, Calton?" badgering and baiting. (Just look at the length of User talk:Calton#Okay then let's debate it.) This brings the count of long-term problems, all accumulating and compounding here in this incident, to six. There's far from one long-term problem to be addressed, here.

    And that's not even counting the fact that this all came from Talk:Van Jones, so the Obama-related-articles ArbCom sanctions are probably here in the mix somewhere, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. Ched 173.88.220.161 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You did right. Better to be safe. He can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, any administrator that feels there is evidence or consensus to conclude the matter in one fashion or another is free to act in the manner they feel best for the 'pedia. I'll not pass judgment, or be upset no matter the result. Ched. 173.88.220.161 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Entirely proper block.  Sandstein  20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Лъчезар

I'm not sure what to do about the comment left by this user here: Talk:Igor_Panarin#The_main_author_of_this_article_and_the_article_whose_contents_you_deleted_received_a_last_warning_before_his_banning_or_blocking. It should probably be removed, but it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy and will probably lead to further problematic behaviour. The editor doesn't seem to understand wikipedia (calling the view that American's visited the moon "[my] pet theory" - I'm not American by the way!) Anyway, I find his comment a bit disturbing, and inappropriate - and it does actually leave me worried for him. Maybe leaving wikipedia would be good for him, but I'm involve and not an admin. Fresh eyes, advice, opinions, etc might help or find a solution. Cheers, Verbal chat 12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That Bulgarian writer with the unpronouncable Cyrillic name is a conspiracy theorist, and essentially booted himself off the Apollo moon hoax article since consensus was against him. He's mostly flown under the radar with this pet article of his about this Igor Panarin who thinks the U.S. will go the way of Yugoslavia next year. Now that the article is getting some scrutiny, he's not happy about it. The connection between those articles is something he kept saying on the Apollo hoax page, that somehow this impending collapse would reveal "the truth" about Apollo - a comment that's the hallmark of someone who does not understand wikipedia's role. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just deleted that section before coming here. It was pretty clearly not in line with the talk page guidelines, but if someone else wants to deal with it in a different way, no worries. As far as I can tell, this post was just a reaction to discussion consenseing away from their favoured version, so no further action should be needed. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I just copied the deleted comment to his own user page. It's clearly inappropriate from the article talk page, but I don't see that sort of screed being inappropriate at all for his own talk page. Copying it there might actually calm the situation some as well (or not, but we'll see).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, that username is pronounceable. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown at Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is currently indef-protected. The admin protecting it is the primary author and editor. Protection was done on the grounds of WP:HRT. The template currently has fewer than 500 transclusions, and doesn't appear to have ever been the subject of vandalism itself. Requests on the talk page have been declined, met with a rather long response from the protecting admin - as a result, a request on RFPP has been going stale, with the outside admin stating that the page should not be protected, but declining to action it. There has been no sign of an edit war, and there is no indication that one is about to begin.

Some further outside input would be greatly appreciated. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also came across this at RFPP, though I haven't commented there. User:Tedder has taken no direct action but has brought the issue on the template talk page; however, he seems to know that User:Ezhiki isn't around on the weekends. He has stated at the template talk page that he will not unprotect because it would be wheel warring; I disagree. User:Ezhiki's actions are of doubtful necessity and are an abuse of administrative tools where he is the creator of the template and one of the only editors. He also appears to have added the protection after User:Pigsonthewing made a bold move; indicating he's using the protection indicating he's using the protection to win a dispute over titling the template. It is perfectly appropriate for an uninvolved admin to take action here and unprotect, wheel warring is when an admin uses his tools to redo an action reverted by another admin. As the admin is apparently not around to discuss, I am unprotecting. However, this issue remains open and I think we need to look harder at this admin's use of his tools generally.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should be preserved, as this templates is still used on a few hundred pages. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that discussion needs to continue on the template's talk page as to whether Wikipedia:HRT applies to this template. I have no opinion on the matter. I unprotected because there was a request at RFPP, the protection appears to have been an abuse of tools by an involved admin and I posted here about it because there was the suggestion that unprotection would be wheel warring. Much of the current discussion there was emotional surrounding the abuse of tools and your point would probably be a good place to make a fresh start with that discussion. This discussion should be about the abuse of tools, this is not a place to discuss the overall merits of protection.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances under which the template was protected are unusual. There does not seem to have been what many might consider sufficient cause for full protection to be placed, so I can see how removing it, as even the admin who first declined to do so favored. Semi-protection is another matter independent of the circumstances, and could easily be requested at WP:RFPP. I'm not sure I would necessarily oppose such semi-protection, but that is another matter. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ezhiki typically abuses his tools. I normally love the guy, he is usually very level-headed, I am concerned in this instance though that he has purposefully locked the template from even me helping constructively edit it because of a perceived threat of deletion or edits removing things which he disgarees with like Farmborough did and that he has resorted to trolling the TFDs to prove a point even when he knows little about them like the Bangladesh template. If you check the actual history of the template to completely lock it fully is clearly inappropriate and seems to have been done out of fear rather than anything else. A semi-lock maybe but I don't think it will get much if any vandalism, the previous Russia city template never did. If at a later date it gets vandalism from ips then semi-lock it. His actions of late over templates and "settlements" have admittedly teed me off a little. Himalayan 13:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned that on 9 September he made two edits (to the template under discussion), one to reverse Pigsonthewing's move of the same day, the other to fully protect the template. This is clear use of tools to win a dispute and is most inappropriate. If it weren't for that, I probably would have let things lie the way Tedder had left them - i.e. wait until Ezhiki got back; but this is very disconcerting.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to see something quite inappropriate check out his excessive posts at the TFDs providing the same invalid argument each time to prove a point. He has voted to keep a template on Bangladesh I nominated too which is actually at present providing seriously false location information and is in interfering with the effort I made to make 64 district locator maps which they could not provide to clean them all up and correct them. He has obviously not actually stopped to examine the pros and cons of the templates and treat each one indiviually but has hounded all of them to prove his point over naming convention because of an earlier conflict on the Russian template with Pigs on the wing, check it out. That in my view is unacceptable behavior from an admin. He has never edited any articles on Bangladesh or the Solomon Islands and normally would not have done this. Himalayan 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Can you all tone down his language and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• To accuse someone of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. You should provide some diffs, and evidence to support your claims. Lychosis ^T/C 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, User:The Squicks has been notified of this thread. Lychosis ^T/C 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no capability to make such an accusation, only to see a pattern, one that could also be produced by the Admin User:Ched Davis, say, who seems to use 173.*.*.* IPs following Squicks and reverting in his favor. I don't have the technical tools to make such investigations, but I can request those who do look into it. Squicks has accused me of being "sexually obsessed", as I recall, for trying to document and write about the original, rude, British meaning of "Yankee doodle." Such accusation, in the context of an edit dispute among people who are not friends, I consider, and most people I know, would consider libelous. That he sees me saying so as threat of a lawsuit is his own overreaction. Social norms reflected in law, without necessarily resorting to it, are often good guides. -MBHiii (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's a good guide for you: When coming to WP:AN/I complaining that editors are logging in and out to edit war, try not doing it yourself at the very same time. It's pretty clear, from even a quick perusal of the edit histories concerned, that you are
      • 74.162.148.126 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Teabagging,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.129.139 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Yankee Doodle and on Talk:Yankee Doodle,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war over an external link to a Youtube video at health care reform in the United States,
      • 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Doodle,
      • all three of 74.162.147.56 (talk · contribs), 74.162.147.36 (talk · contribs), and 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) in the Obama-related edit war at Teabagger,
      • and a whole load of others besides.
    • And the edit wars that you are participating in on the user talk pages of many of these accounts, such as on User talk:74.162.151.64 and User talk:74.162.129.139 for examples, are descending into the absurd. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It is my understanding that using IPs is no violation, except when used to avoid policies. I have no proof for whether the apparent pattern of IPs supporting Squicks is that, but you may, if you care to look into it. Thanks for calling him about his language, again, if you did. MBHiii (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page copied from MyWikiBiz ?

See Osmund Lewry a page copied from there. According to this page, the author retains all rights to content posted on MyWikiBiz, and Thekohser (talk · contribs) has stated that the page is not GFDL. Can this page be accepted? Triplestop x3 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See also WR thread Triplestop x3 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The original page is here, its in the "Directory" space, the "Directory" space is explicitly not licensed with a compatible license (looks to be a version of "all rights reserved to MyWikiBiz"). Since MyWikiBiz is Thekohser's site, presumably that means the copyright is owned by him and he's free to reissue it GFDL? Nathan ^T 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If as Thekohser says ([18]), the content is posted on Wikipedia at the request of the author, then this needs to be authorized through WP:OTRS. As it stands now, the content has to go. Evil saltine (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be acceptable to contact http://www.mywikibiz.com/User:Ockham , the author of the content on MyWikiBiz. Evil saltine (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tis true, my fine lad - but yon link shows they writer gave thems permission to post here, as well. I tell ye no lie, I thinks the content be used in Wikipedia under ars own license (and a pretty one it is, to be sure) being donated. Yaaaarrrrr!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then MyWikiBiz would need to be contacted to show that they gave permission. Evil saltine (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yon Cap'n of the good ship MyWikiBiz goes by the name Thekohser, and he be the fellow as written that permission be granted. Does thee suppose another tale be told if the ship were hailed directly? Yar...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll e-mail permissions-en to see if that would be adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon the intrusion but this seems like a cute little attempt at a breaching experiment. This could be resolved rather rapidly if thekosher decided not to be so coy about things and simply state who wrote the original article and under what license is it distributed. As far as I'm concerned if that doesn't happen in the next 48 hours or so I have no problem speedying it as a copyvio. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thekohser claims to may have permission to relicense it per [19]. Evil saltine (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I, along with Greg, received an email from the original author asking to repost the article. Although I declined to do so, I'd say that email constitutes permission to release under Wikipedia's current license (CC-BY-SA 3.0, not GFDL) because the original author is fully aware of Wikipedia's license requirements. Thatcher 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It would be really helpful if you could forward said e-mail to permissions-en at wikimedia.org so this can be formalized through OTRS. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think OTRS is needed since the article did not come from Kohs' web site, rather it came from User_talk:Petrus_Damianus and Kohs copied it first to MyWikiBiz before posting it in main space. Thatcher 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your September 2009 on Wikipedia's User_talk space, and raise you one February 2009 on MyWikiBiz's Directory space. -- Thekohser 02:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. In that case, however, the original author on MyWikiBiz [20] needs to release the text under a compatible software license. He could do that by contacting the WMF permissions email address, or by posting a note on some page on MyWikiBiz and then we can link to it here. Right now it looks like Petrus Damianus plagiarized the copyright-protected work of Ockham. I know someone who claims to be both Petrus Damianus and Ockham, but to prove it, Ockham has to post some kind of confirmation on MyWikiBiz; either confirmation of his real name, or confirmation that he releases the article under GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0. Thatcher 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed released under GFDL. Thatcher 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page likely created by/for PD

Columba Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was created by the banned user Peter Damian [21]. User:Lar has said that he would "take responsibility" for it [22]. I would like more input on whether this is acceptable. G5 states that the article must be "created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others", however should a banned user be able to add an article through offsite coordination like this? This looks like a reasonable page, but given PD's comments on destroying wikipedia I am having trouble assuming good faith as this seems like a campaign to prove some sort of point [23]. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PS thank you for the compliment Peter Damian (if you are reading this), I am sure I have 10x the brain you ever had. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're just making yourself look more foolish when you do that. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard part of G5. PD knows this. So he's going to sock and/or proxy to get "good" articles into wikipedia in order to show us all how wrong we were about banning him for being disputatious and unpleasant. Burn. with. fire. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While a reasonable article has been produced as a result, this is still pure trolling. I won't pretend to understand Peter's ultimate goal here, but certainly the medium-term intention seems to be to demonstrate that banning him was counterproductive to Wikipedia's overall goal. It's an odd form of it, I'll grant you that, but this is still disruptive sockpuppetry to prove a point. I would personally have no issue with G5ing this. ~ mazca ^talk 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be instructive to review all of the banning policy, (but in particular: Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. ... I've done exactly that) and all of the discussion in this section of the talk: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reinstating_edits_of_banned_users.3F. The article is no longer G5-able. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Triplestop is referring to Columba Ryan when he says I took responsibility. And I did, for that one. I have nothing to do with Osmund Lewry. Peter Damian no doubt would like to see this article deleted as it would further his campaign. My typical approach to Peter's actions is to thwart his unreasonable actions. But if he's willing to write good articles (which Columba Ryan has every possibility of being), let him. Deleting it is what he wants. Or drama, whichever. Don't play that game. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with what Lar said, especially the last few lines. NW (Talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a lose lose situation. Banned users need to stay away, however if we delete it then it adds to his trolling campaign. But I think his use of the name "Previously Banned User" sums up his intent pretty nicely. Triplestop x3 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So if it's a good article, and someone else takes responsibility, chuckle to yourself and let it slide. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the policy page, the page can be speedy deleted on sight. So since you are taking responsibility for this I would like to see you making substantial edits. Triplestop x3 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might advise Lar, someone who has been editing Wikipedia for as many years as you have months (on this account, amyhoo), what further edits you might wish to see. Perhaps which pastime the subject were interested in, or if they have been rendered as an avatar in a Xbox game...?Sometimes, taking responsibility for an article when it was created by or on behalf of a banned editor (and you have checked the chronology to ensure it was created by PD while he was banned from WP, and not when he wasn't, I suppose per AGF) is simply to say, "This satisfies the requirements for a WP article as is, and I therefore take responsibility for it." Unless you can provide the policy or guideline that notes an adopted article must be substantially edited by the adoptee I think you may reconsider your strident posturing (and language). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." This approach would please everyone would it not? And I am sorry opinions from us worthless peons don't matter. Triplestop x3 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably noteworthy to... the edit where I confirmed Brandon's findings at the relevant SPI report (after blocking PD's latest sock) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ NW. There is really no option here other than avoiding playing his games. Part of the reason he is banned is because he insisted on treating other people like this, placing them in seemingly implacable binds in order to fulfill his views about wikipedia. It's petty and fanatical and we are better off just going without it. If that means wikipedia has 1 less article on 13th century theologians so be it. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except NW was agreeing with me :) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I read his agreement as "yes we suffer a crappy tradeoff in this situation, but the last few lines (ie the decision) aren't correct". :) I don't really think that we have an easy answer available. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with what Lar and Skomorokh said. If Peter Damian wants to do everything he can to get good content on to Wikipedia, we can ignore him and chuckle at his efforts, thereby exterminating drama and adding content to the encyclopedia. If he wants to start attacking editors, we can block him. Simple as that. It may not go along with WP:BAN, but that's why we have this. NW (Talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this approach; we should approach the matter from the point of view of being an encyclopaedia first, a community second. If looking the other way while banned editors contribute productively (before immediately blocking if they start any trouble) and having mildly annoyed adminsitrators is the price we have to pay for a better eneyclopaedia, then so be it. The problem with situations like the above is that we defenders of the wiki are buying into and playing up to the moral framework of the banned.  Skomorokh  22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But that (whether or not we play into his moral framework) is largely unimportant. And frankly, if we are going to do that, let's unban PD right now. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought it is best to keep this page. Thank you for your contribution Peter Damian however you are still banned and you are not getting what you want. Triplestop x3 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, I think Damian should be unblocked. You have to understand his particular form of disruption. He wants to prove (it seems to me) that Wikipedia's policies are defective and are geared to preventing useful additions to the encyclopedia—the reason we are all supposedly here.

1. He was blocked for 3RR on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). He was edit warring with an IP that refused to discuss edits on the talk page, and deliberately noting in his edit summaries that he was exceeding 3RR. He was blocked, but the IP was not blocked until 24 hours later after an outcry on the noticeboard. What he thinks he proved is that the blocking policy is enforced in a non-sensical and capricious way. But what he failed to do is use the processes that are already in place to deal with this kind of problem (such as WP:RFPP).
2. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to tag an alleged sockpuppet of FT2, exposing what he thinks is hypocrisy that treats FT2 differently than Geogre. What he failed to do was use the process already in place for dealing with user conduct problems (laying out a case at WP:RFC/U).
3. He now uses sockpuppets to create articles, then identifies himself hoping someone will delete the content, or as in this case creates content on another site and asks someone to copy it across. What he wants to prove is that good content will be deleted for political reasons, putting politics ahead of the stated goal of writing an encyclopedia. What he fails to do is simply edit quietly as the sockpuppet, since if he did not call attention to himself by disruptive conduct, no one would object to his creating content.

I think that a more rational approach to Damian is to encourage him to follow the dispute resolution processes already in place, whether it involves article content or user conduct. (They may not be perfect, but they are not going to get any better by deliberately ingnoring and undermining them.) Whenever he feels the need to climb the Reichstag and ignore the appropriate process in favor of being deliberately disruptive, he should be blocked for some standard length of time (maybe 5-7 days) and then just ignore further demonstrations by him. He could remain unblocked forever or spend the next 5 years blocked for 120 out of every 121 hours, it would be his choice.

It is important to recognize that unlike some other banned users, for whom I definitely would not advocate this approach, Damian can not cause significant disruption unless he has the unwitting help of other editors and admins. Just stop playing the game by his rules. Thatcher 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember he was banned for being unbeleivably difficult and unpleasant and we just rationalized it by listing those specific proscribed acts. I would support an unban if someone would give me reason to believe that he wouldn't just come back here, act like a jerk to anyone who wasn't a classicist and then get upset when we ask him not to act like a jerk. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

His current indef ban follows from tagging FT2 as a sockpuppet user, after his unban in 2008 included a condition that he not interact or discuss FT2. I think this original condition was too broad, that he should have been allowed to use the appropriate dispute resolution channels as long as he did not go outside those channels (harassment, using socks himself, etc). For example, he was threatened with blocking or actually blocked (I forget which) for making AfD nominations of articles FT2 had contributed to years before. I never meant for the prohibition on harassing FT2 to be interpreted that broadly. As I said, I think the best way to handle him when he disrupts to make a point is to give a standard length block, without drama, and to ignore any attempts to raise more drama. Think of him, if you must, as a striker. By himself, he can only make sparks, someone else must provide the fuel if he is to get a fire going. Thatcher 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tagging page

This is completely inappropriate. Whoever is doing that should stop now. It is one thing to have such a view, it is another to create a secondary account for the purpose of pushing such a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's just some drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons....and blocked. Thatcher 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Was it confirmed? Because, I must say, if it was Peter then he is really scrapping the bottom of that barrel for names. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. it's not Damian. It's someone from a different country, actually, who has a couple dozen sockpuppets and seems to be up to no good in various ways, such as [24]. Thatcher 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesh, Thatcher. When you say "drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons", you have to know that it applies to many, many people here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear from the context that I meant "A drama whore who is not Peter Damian" :) Thatcher 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking requested

I found a little mistake in the Elvis Presley article. However, it has a padlock on it so I can't fix it. So I did some hunting and found that webmaster, Tiptoety, put the lock on it. However, his page also has a lock on it so I can't notify and ask him.

Please remove these locks or tell me where there's a subscription page so I can upgrade my membership to a paid membership and presumably have the key to these padlocks. This page is also hard to find so Wikipedia is not the most user friendly. Lake Forest (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pay to be able to edit these articles. Your account just needs to be autoconfirmed (you need at least 10 edits, and your account needs to be older than 10 days). Although some pages are locked against all but our admins, who are elected via community consensus. If you want to become autoconfirmed before 10 edits and 4 days, you can request it at this page, so long as you provide a good reason (contact me if you need help with that). Or, to get someone who is already autoconfimred to edit, you can go to the talk page of the article (get to this by going to the article, and click the "discussion" tab along the top), and create a new section (by selecting the "new section" tab). And into this section add this code:

{{Editsemiprotected}} <enter details of the edit wanted here>

Hope that helps. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have added you manually to the "autoconfirmed" usergroup that Kingpin mentioned, so you should be free to edit the Elvis Presley (or any other semi-protected) article. And just a quick side note because you mentioned paid subscriptions, there has never been nor will there ever be a subscription necessary to edit a Wikipedia article. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

...anyone else added Elvis's article to their watchlist recently? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building, everyone knows that. But his article (and his article's watchlist) will rock on for a very long time. ++Lar: t/c 07:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a few edits, it appears that there are two distinct POVs--it can be seen either as one side insisting on keeping material that serves to promote the platform of the group while removing less creditable information, or as one side another trying to remove explanatory material and insert material unduly critical of the group. Most of the material on either side is sourced to Canadian newspapers, respectable RSs, but of different political orientations. The question is balance, and judging that would take more familiarity with the topic than I am interested in acquiring, but a priori based on dozens of similar situations here, it is possible that neither side is altogether espousing a NPOV. I didn't check about sockpuppettry, but from the talk p. it seems that one ed using an ip address is complaining that other editors are using both a name and ip addresses. I have protected the article for 4 days so that this can be resolved, but I invite anyone prepared to resolve it to remove the protection earlier than that.. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user who has requested this is involved in an edit war at the abovementioned page with user:Quebecois1837. There has been significant edit warring in this article (50 changes in the last 33 hours), and I've placed an RPP on this article as well as issued a warning to both parties involved. I'm not an admin, just trying to make your lives easier. Frmatt (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

well, I've just done that protection, without trying to judge the merits DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(possibly OT) - I spent some time on this one back in March, but marked it up as hopeless soon after the talk page sprouted: "No personal attacks please? I didn't do personnal attack and I speak the language I want! Phil" and '"At least get it right", I get it right, you are arrogant, a federalist, no other word needed... Phil'

The subject meets wp:NOTE but POV of its self-proclaimed-supporters ranged from We're a great organization peacefully pursuing freedom. to We are terrorists and @#$% proud of it. Phear meh!...and I dropped it off my watchlist as a bad bet. - Sinneed (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Am doing some work on it here Frmatt (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois1837 was another sock of User:Philbox17, This was confirmed via checkuser tools. I have blocked him. --Versageek 04:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesusandashley's "supposed biography article"

Resolved

 – article and editor removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He slapped on a notice saying that "If you try to edit this page and the information does not match with the information we provided, you will be in trouble with the FBI, police assoiciates. They will charge you a fee of $25,000.00 and you will be sent to court-

Thank you."

If this isn't enough for this section, then it might still be noteworthy at WP:BLPN. A notice should be made saying that if you want to make stuff about yourself to leave it at their user page. Again, might be also noteworthy for WP:BLPN. ConCompS (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page in question Jesus Jimenez.Shinerunner (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified user about this discussion. Shinerunner (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the editor under WP:Legal, and the article has been deleted by another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

166.127.1.225

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 months for vandalism. Next time, just go right to administrator intervention against vandalism. MuZemike 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I must request that IP address 166.127.1.225 be blocked. He has been editing for months and all of these edits are obvious vandalism. His contributions can be found here. Thank you for your time and consideration. --15lsoucy (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional oversight of admins?

I assume the fact that no one addressed these edits before they were archived as an unintentional oversight. (???)

Some users have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally delete several images that consist entirely of text and/or simple geometric shapes. I request that they all be restored as improper speedy deletions.

File:ASUinterlock.gif

File:AzSt.gif

File:Colorado.gif

File:Akron.gif

File:Tulane shield web.png *note that this one was deleted after someone changed the file tag. Needs to be fixed.

File:UT&Tmark.png restored

While I view these as clear PD images, it doesn't mean they can't have a valid use and a FUR even if someone decides they aren't PD. No notice was given as far as I can tell and speedy deletion wasn't appropriate here. Request these images be restored and, if the orignal deleter decides, place them back up for deletion via normal channels. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:DRV? They aren't clear PD images to me, and so they had an improper license, a valid speedy criteria. If you want them restored, you can ask the deleting admin and then go onto DRV. I don't see what else should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Shadowrun Wiki Links Dispute

I was directed here by a helpful moderator, Leuko, who could not address my issue with another user's (MJBurrage) insinuative comments that he/other contributors were the deciding factors on how many and what links would be added to the wikipage there. The grievance with these types of actions, and the ethics behind them, prompted this post.

The heart of the matter is whether or not other resource sites outside of the single dubiously "non-official" external link should be allowed and why. This site's (Dumpshock, owned by a Shadowrun game developer) operation by paid employees of the game studio itself suggest ethical and conflict of interest issues of their own in turning the wikipage into one large, in-house advertisement. It has sparked a heated debate there, and has quickly become the largest discussion posting on the thread. With only two contributory voices (MJBurrage and Canterbury Tail) trying to tell a slew of supporters that 'community consensus' is needed, when consensus is obviously residing with a camp outside of their viewpoint.

I recognize that I may have a conflict of interest (as a representative) in the matters of getting a specific site link (#S-Run Community) added, but the support for that link has been very strong and near-unanimous. This link was also allowed to reside there without hindrance in the past as a resource offering information (Gameplay Logs, Campaign Presentations, exclusive movie content, etc.) until a loss of hosting caused it to be taken down. Now that the site is being rebuilt to its former specifications, there is suddenly an issue with its re-addition -- as well as the addition of any other site to the external links area. As a representative of the aforementioned site, I will not be attempting the link it to avoid conflicts of interest; however, the support for its addition and the criteria it meets speak for itself as far as 'community consensus' is concerned.

For reference to the development of this debate, the Talk histories of users 'Solorunner', 'MJBurrage', 'Canterbury Tail'; and moderators 'Leuko' and 'Vancouver Outlaw' within the past 72 hours. Reference Sections for the Discussion page itself include numbers '13 and 21+Appendices'.

Thank you for your time in monitoring/addressing these issues.

Solorunner (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've notified User:MJBurrage of this discussion, which seems to be about whether Solorunner can include a link to some fan site at Shadowrun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All I did was ask some rhetorical questions on the Shadowrun talk page, to point out why we have notability policies. In a later comment I explicitly linked to those policies—W:EL and W:RS—when I realized that Solorunner had chosen to interpret said questions as declarations.

I am sorry that Solorunner feels that anyone explaining why S-Run might not be encyclopedic, is somehow making a personal attack. I even suggested a course of action that could make such a link applicable to the article; write a referenced section on on-line play of the Shadowrun RPG. If one of the independent sources used mentions S-Run than a link would probably be appropriate. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Solorunner runs the website in question, so there's an obvious COI issue as well. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

External link "Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika/At Thy will, South Africa"

There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly South Africa under apartheid. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. I just weeded out most of them (I hope all of them), see my contribs.

Despite the fact that a discussion-string was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). I'm at a loss. I don't think I can request semi-protection for 37 articles at a time... Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist the link? The website seems to be hosted on the John Birch Society and we can debate its overall later another time. From a search at Special:LinkSearch, there's quite a few more uses (the election pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be a good solution. I'd be interested in a centralized discussion regarding the video's merits, but running around undoing stuff isn't my cup of tea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really work on centralized discussion really. If the video is a reliable source then it can be used anywhere it's considered relevant. If it's not, it's not appropriate anywhere. If they're just spamming anywhere and everywhere, then they'll all be removed. If there's a remote attempt at some discussion, then it's worth having. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added it for proposed blacklisting. I hope I did this right, never done this before. If somebody finds the time, please check it to see if it's ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple socks of TheStrayCat

Seems to be a pretty obvious case - TheStrayCat (talk · contribs), IzDaNocky (talk · contribs), DudeBrownie (talk · contribs), Katesparrow (talk · contribs) and Rocket to Jupiter (talk · contribs) have been used, one after the other, to perform the exact same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Add RugratsFan2 (talk · contribs) to the list... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And now Anti-Sockpuppet (talk · contribs), which is practially an admission of guilt... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

...Wikis4everybody (talk · contribs)... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. None of these accounts you are listing are performing the same edits as TheStrayCat. They are merely new accounts that are editing pages regarding animated films. TheStrayCat however matches the MO of a vandal who tacked on "animated" or "cartoon" to television series and films that were animated, or were merely animated in part. Stop listing them all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim they were the same edits, I wrote that they are the same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

However, they are all accounts utilized to edit articles regarding actual animated films.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The main efforts of IzDaNocky (talk · contribs) and DudeBrownie (talk · contribs) thus far seems to be reverting TheStrayCat (talk · contribs). Could be an attention-seeker doing vandalism edits on one hand and "heroically" repairing them on the other. If so, then this is someone with WAY too much free time. Manning (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the timing of it all that caught my attention. I haven't checked account creation times, but I'd bet money that the puppet accounts were created right after the last edit of the previous account. Classic serial sockpuppetry tactic - create an account, make a few edits, move on to the next account. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All the suspect accounts listed there seem to be blocked.- Sinneed 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but because Ryulong directed me to stop listing new socks, there are a few more that haven't been blocked. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations seems to be the place to list them?- Sinneed 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User Simon Speed being disruptive

I'm having a serious problem with user Simon Speed, under justification this edits were vandalism, where he justifies that classification by assuming bad faith and pointing to old unrelated edits in my talk page, he ignored the last version, before those edits were made, and the earlier version of the article (before problematic changes in that article). Instead he reverted to a a specific version of the article that he liked better, without making that change explicit in the edit summary, restoring problematic and unreferenced content. That action was deceptive, unjustified, ignored the previous stable versions and, as many of his last actions disruptive. I think the user is having serious problem understanding Wikipedia's policies and editing process.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are having a content war. From first glance Simon Speed seems to be attempting to adhere to a more neutral point of view. Not ALL of your recent changes fail NPOV, but enough were to justify the revert. For example, you changed the heading "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex". You removed references to Christian promotion of abstinence and re-expressed it as if Wikipedia itself was advocating abstinence. I don't necessarily regard your edits as vandalism but they are POV biased and deserved to be reverted. You are unlikely to find many allies to your case here. Manning (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which specific edit you're talking. I'm talking about the latest. Where he says this edits were vandalism, but restored to another version that isn't neither the latest or the last stable version (before content dispute started). You can see more details on the article talk page.

I've made earlier changes on the article, but since Simon Seed was reverting all, I then restored to a previous version (before recent changes started), as it was, so we could discuss all the changes on top of that, as by the talk page. It doesn't mean I agree with that old version, right the opposite, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it into to that version (the first before Simon Seed started reverting)

I didn't change "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex", that was simple the way it was in that earlier version. I didn't make any specific change for that purpose.

Christian promotion of abstinence was removed (13:13, 16 September 2009) under the following justification "Removed problematic text supported by no or unreliable sources, please don't readd without providing a reliable scientific source". I had former rewritten that section in a balanced way, but that change was reverted by Simon Speed, as all my edits in that article.

Abstinence was rewritten] citing reliable sources and presenting both POVs.

I would like to hear other administrators if that user behavior, which just reverts all my edits using prejudice argumentation (assumption of bad faith) is appropriate.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to appeal for the input of further admins. I will recuse from further comment. Manning (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As with the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User systematically reverting my edits incident opened yesterday, I don't see a note at the user's talk page about this bit. I have added one. I also updated WQA to say this issue has been taken to ANI. - Sinneed (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Sineed for informing me and thank you to Nutriveg for escalating this: this is one of the few points on which I am in agreement with them. Thank you to Manning for considering that my reversions on Safe sex were justified, however since that point Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:Cameron Scott reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:MishMich reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted and then I reverted their edits. Would anyone wanting to deal with this please note the following edits Nutriveg made to their talk page spanning most of their editing career :- 2009-09-19 [25] 2009-04-20 [26] 2009-03-12 [27] 2008-12-14 [28] . --Simon Speed (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an actionable problem. Maybe I am being dense.

I do see a content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. Because 1 edit had such a wide range of changes, a single revert made MANY changes, and may make it "feel" as if all one's changes are being reverted.

I suggested to Nutriveg making more focused edits, so that it is easier to work with them, should an editor oppose.- Sinneed 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war and Peronal Attacks.

User talk:MickMacNee has been counseled on making personal attack and he continues to make them. He is also in violation of 3rr Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I count five reverts (so far) by Hell In A Bucket to the same page, which surely breaches the three-revert rule as well. It smells strongly of censorship to me, given the high number of personal attacks that are flung about on that talk page without being reverted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, Mick has. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ec, Micks action of posting what looks to me like an uncivil comment about another user and then repeatedly reinserting it after it has been removed by other users is a bit much and not needed at all.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Vandallism or personal attacks aren't considered violations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's useful to know. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing it six times isn't clever, though. Report it here or at WP:AN3 before you break the 3RR line next time, please. Black Kite 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No arguements there. I did however base it off WP:EW#WHATISNT 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that WP:NOTVAND clearly says that personal attacks aren't vandalism. Confusing, isn't it? Black Kite 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee has been blocked for 2weeks by User Cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor(s) refusing to get the point.

On List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes (yes, shut up; I go where the problems take me and no article doesn't deserve attention simply because of what it is) two IPs (209.6.87.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.67.248.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); though I have a hunch they're the same person) keep changing the numbering style from season format (1**, 2**, 3**, etcetera), which the page was originally at, to just a continual list (The first season is in season format, the second season just continues on from there. I've explained twice how season numbering format works and 'they' are just completely ignoring me. Now I'm moderately sure I'm not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to it's original format. I'm technically considering this vandalism, since I've explained how the format is supposed to be and I'm being ignored.

Given the situation, will I get in trouble for continually reverting it; or is this considered an exception to 3RR? On the other hand, can they be reported for 3RR? HalfShadow 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted it again. IPs are making no attempt to communicate at all. HalfShadow 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep reporting them to AIV - I blocked the one I saw there - and give an earlier ip contribtions as evidence of systematic disruption. Otherwise, go report it at SPI and see if a CU will comment on the consequences of a rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle and the List of Hustler Honeys article

For more than two years, since the day the article was first created, the List of Hustler Honeys falsely and without sourcing identified a notable entertainer as the May 2005 holder of this title, and linked to her article. The entertainer in question is a Colombian television performer with no discernible involvement in the pornographic/erotica industry, who is also moderately prominent in the US for appearing in Telemundo productions. This is a clear BLP violation, and subject to immediate removal. I have removed this claim several times. User:Delicious carbuncle consistently reinserts the name, claiming that removing the link cures the BLP violation because it "may be a different [name omitted by me]" and "Same name different person".User:Delicious carbuncle has made no effort to provide any sourcing. Instead he/she has used a string of increasingly combative edit summaries, including today a summary that was no more than an uncivil personal insult: "Stop being a dick."
This should be a simple matter. There is no question that the original version of the article was a BLP violation. You can't evade the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP by arguing "Hey, there's no proof it's not another person with the same name" -- especially since the article's original author linked to the notable entertainer's page, and therefore claimed she was the person pictured in the magazine. Whether or not the name is linked doesn't affect BLP sourcing requirements.
I am therefore requesting that User:Delicious carbuncle be admonished for incivility, and be warned that repeatedly inserting unsourced content casting a named, notable person in an unfavorable light is a violation of WP:BLP which can result in loss of editing privileges. BLP requires us to edit "conservatively," and that the "burden of evidence" for material regarding living persons "rests with the person who adds or restores material." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your other concerns, there apparently may indeed be a Brazilian model by the same name who would seem to potentially be the individual the article was originally referring to, but I have no way to reliably source that, and will be haunted, for some time, by the Google search required to ascertain that information. This may be related to the blurb (on the effectively unused) talk page that indicates someone went through and linked every name on the list without regard to disambiguation issues. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Even without disambiguation issues, whoever it is deserves the same protection whether they are famous or not. If someone puts "Sinneed" in there, as utterly non-notable as can be, it would require proper sourcing to meet wp:BLP. I don't understand why even one name is listed there without at least 2 sources, or at least one saying the individual was not a living person (a stage name protecting the identity of an actual person, for example), and one (two if a real person? If we have a citation to Hustler is that enough?) saying she was a "Honey" that month and year. This is clearly controversial information about persons we have no reason to believe are not actual living people, to whom the protections of BLP would apply. If I am missing something, and someone feels very generous, I would love to be educated. :) The article appears to me to be entirely a gigantic BLP violation.- Sinneed 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) - expand - - Sinneed 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz didn't start a discussion at either the article's talk page, or at the BLP noticeboard. I don't believe I have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion at this point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Haggar IP

I just caught an IP doing Haggar vandalism [29]. I've blocked it but I don't know how to go about checking for open proxies or if there is anything else that should be followed up. SpinningSpark 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an open proxy as far as I can discern; there are many copycat vandals that happen to use the same words. I'm assuming this is just a bored kid somewhere, so I think the action you've taken already is all that's necessary - in fact, a month's block is probably more than is really warranted. With the exception of the word "HAGGER" that we've come to associate with problem users, this is simple, ordinary vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

problematic user causing problems

I am having certain difficulties with the user LAz17. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article Boris Tadić. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Wikipedia.

I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Wikipedia and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you expect problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Boris Tadić) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). WP:Don't panic. Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.

I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Wikipedia can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--Avala (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on List of Presidents of Madagascar

Resolved

As a devout Wikipedian, and according to Golbez's advice, i think it's my duty to report vandalism on List of Presidents of Madagascar from IP adress 192.18.43.225 (this is its talk page). Almost every day, it displays next message on List of Presidents - "Since 17 March 2009, Madagascar has no official elected President. A putschist, Andry Rajoelina, paid the Army and holds a dictatorial self-proclaimed regime". I am sure that some action must be taken to stop this vandalism in the future. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference WP:AIV is the place for reporting vandalism. Thanks anyhow.--Patton123 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. However, given the nature of the edits, I have semi-protected the page. Black Kite 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How is continuous addition of problematic information not vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unban of user [[::User:Ararat arev|Ararat arev]] (talk · contribs)

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to this, the user above is a blocked sockpuppet of a previously banned user, the user who's name is part of the section title for this section. As I have understood things, when a user is community banned, it takes the community to unban them, not just a single unilateral unblock by an admin, as seen here. So far, the user seems to be acting good, so, what do you all say, keep banned, or unban? I'm neutral in this matter, I just think it is the community who should decide, not a single admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, I have no real opinion about the user per se. In blocking him, I was just acting on an AE report and on Versageek's checkuser finding, cited in the block log, that he's a sock of a confirmed sock of banned user Ararat arev. What I do find rude is Fred Bauder's decision to unblock him without prior consultation with either me or the admins who blocked/banned Ararat arev in the first place. But I assume this means he takes responsibility for this user's conduct and agrees to deal with Ararat arev-related issues from now on, yes?  Sandstein  20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree to monitor him; as to assuming responsibility for all Ararat arev-related issues from now on, you must be joking... Although this experience, like all Wikipedia experience, will equip me to be more able to deal with this particular complex of trouble. I engaged in an extensive dialog with the user and notified you; I'm sorry if that was not enough for granting a provisional trial to this user. Fred Talk 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to prove that I am not a sock puppet, master, or any account related to Ararat-arev. I do not want to be associated with this account. At this point, if I may be honest, I feel like I'm being punished for following Wikipedia's rules and not creating another account. Thank you to Fred Bauer, for taking my word and I will honor his trust. However, I do not want to be held responsible for any thing that happens with Ararat-arev, Ararat-arev issues and Mr. Bauer should not be held responsible either, because I am no way associated with that user. I was falsely accused of being a sock puppet and I am in no way one. If I was one, I wouldn't go through all this trouble right now and I would just create another account. I would like to be held accountable for the edits made on MY account and no one else's and would appreciate Wikipedia's support. I own the fact that I made a few errors in judgement on my account, but I will not take responsibility for other people's actions. Nareg510 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence from my CU on this user tied him to Ararat-arev via a previously identified sock of Ararat-arev. The evidence tying him to both Turk00 (talk · contribs) & Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is particularly strong - to the point where "my roomate/friend/family member" would be the only plausible defense. I'm rarely adverse to giving someone a second chance - but it may be a bit too soon for this user.. --Versageek 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Unban

• Support. If the editor understands that there will be very little latitude. Welcome back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think it is best with any troublesome editor, when they say they are prepared to turn over a new leaf, to grant them a brief trial, and appropriate assistance with whatever problems they have had in the past. In this case help with identifying appropriate sources and editing productively rather than arguing about issues. If they appeal to the unblock-en-l mailing list, any administrator who monitors that list should be able to unblock them, provided they take responsibility for monitoring their behavior. It is not clear that the particular editor unblocked, Nareg510 is in fact the sock master Ararat arev (checkuser depends on a chain rather than a direct link). However, sock or not, if he is ready to edit responsibly, he should be given a trial period to demonstrate that. Fred Talk 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• User is contrite and appears to understand the problem, there will be plenty of eyes watching for future problems, so why not. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are voting, not a constructive approach to this problem. I don't think the route Fred took on this unban (or, apparently, a separate instance of the same thing as described on his talkpage) was ideal, but since its done... It won't hurt much to take a wait and see approach on the Nareg510 account - particularly if Fred keeps a close eye on him. Nathan ^T 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Unban

• No. This user has been sockpuppeting for at least 2 years. And he's been really busy: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ararat_arev. Now he says he's going to turn over a new leaf and you welcome him with open arms? Notice that he doesn't even acknowledge sockpuppetry: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ararat_arev. So I don't exactly have hopes this guy is going to reform. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• First one I looked at, User:KahaneTzadak, is not blocked and the tag seems to be a joke. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Try looking at the suspected sock Alex mond (talk · contribs) and his history of anti-Semitic conspiracism and attacks against admins. Example: "Dont waste my time, we tried to fix this BS site, but it seems to remain in Jewish lies. And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide." --Folantin (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• This unblock is ridiculous. This user is even still denying he is Ararat Arev, still insisting he was "not a sock" both in his recent wiki postings and in the e-mail correspondence with Bauder. He has also made no commitment about how he plans to edit more constructively than he used to, other than a cheap and meaningless promise "not to edit-war again". The edit history of the most recent sock shows precisely the same disruptive behaviour as the original account and all the other socks. After the massive amount of disruption caused by this user, a unilateral unblock without any substantial assurance of change, without any substantive precautions against abuse, and without any community feedback, is completely unacceptable. No way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewing further the behaviour of the sock and the extremely thin nature of his commitments towards the unblock arrangement offered by Bauder, I have re-blocked the account. There is absolutely no realistic basis for an un-ban here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the decision to unban was absolutely ridiculous. Ararat Arev (and his sock army) was the most disruptive user ever to infest Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. He's treated himself to plenty of "fresh starts" (he has 278 listed suspected socks). He's wasted hours and hours of good faith editors' time as they've attempted to counter his relentless POV-pushing and trolling. It's hard enough for the very few admins who actually bother to deal with Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts without somebody who appears to have no clue about the issue granting a unilateral unban to such a disruptive user. --Folantin (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• No. Just...no. Sockers almost never stop; I've seen examples of sockers promising to stop and mend their ways while at the same time running sockpuppet accounts. His word can't be trusted. HalfShadow 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1.  GARDEN  20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Fred Bauder unblocked a purported sock of a banned community banned editor (per WP:BOLD or WP:IAR?) and Future Perfect At Sunrise has reblocked (per emerging consensus or application of WP:BAN?). Any admin action to revert Fut.Perf.'s block would be in violation of WP:Wheel, so it appears the requirement of further admin intervention is closed. The account may appeal the block through the usual channels. Can someone stick up a resolved template, unless there are disagreements with my understanding? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

this was not the way to do it. When one admin comes here and asks for consensus, he doesn't usually mean to see who does what first. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Fut.Perf.'s action "resolved" anything at all. He preempted discussion and took action based on his own understanding of the situation, without allowing the discussion to proceed to a consensus. This is precisely the same thing folks have criticised Fred Bauder for doing. It's ironic, really, because not only does it replicate the same problem in the other direction (with the additional second mover advantage tossed in for good measure), it blocks a more useful and definitive conclusion on the question of whether Fred's action was appropriate. Nathan ^T 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

i just recently noticed fred's arbitrary unblocking of another confirmed sockpuppet Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and thought it strange but noted that he took responsibility for the user. however, after looking at his talk page list of unblocked users, i wonder how it is possible for him to monitor all those accounts adequately. he seems to make arbitrary unblocks after private emailing with the user and no community discussion. this doesn't seem like a good way to handle these things and i think fred should be admonished to consult the community before acting in these situations. untwirl(talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rules violation in other language Wikipedia

Hi, is there a way to make an article in other language Wikipedia to comply with its (and English language too) WP:LIVE, WP:OR, and other WP:5 rules? I'm talking in particular about russian language Wikipedia, and there are editors who keep adding poorly sourced and unsourced material to articles, which also contain negative information about living persons thus breaking WP:LIVE. Administrators there are weak to respond for various reasons including they prefer not to get involved into "hot" topics and suggest a route of "mediation" instead of negative material removal. Thanks for advice. windyhead (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd discuss such an idea at the Russian encyclopedia. There's not much we can do here. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

External links - Shadowrun

I'd just like to get some other eyes on a topic if I may. The topic is about external links in the Shadowrun article. It started a couple of days ago when the administrator of an online fansite and community came and added his site to the article, which was then removed. This continued on and off for a series of edits with a couple of other editors removing the link. Subsequently it has gone to the talk page. Unfortunately it has now gone to the point where the owner of the site appears to be soliciting their site members to come to Wikipedia to point out why their site should be included, which is muddying the waters a little. In my mind the link, as it stands, doesn't seem eligible for inclusion under the WP:EL guidelines, namely the not to include numbers 4, 6 and 11, plus the conflict of interest guidelines and and sites requiring registration. Anyway the conversation is all here under Talk:Shadowrun#Fansites, so if someone else could take a look if they have a spare 20 minutes and provide some feedback either way it would be appreciated. I don't mind either way, however it seems to be getting more involved that a simple EL should have become, so some neutral oversight would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is spamming references to a specific book or article to multiple Wikipedia articles. I have to take off now, so, could some one else take care of this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given a 24-hour vacation, courtesy of yours truly. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin

For reasons I can not fathom, User:KillerChihuahua appears to be on a crusade against me. The issue started at Oroonoko, which I came across while looking through novel FAs. I noticed it had a lot of unsourced material, which is not acceptable in an FA, so I tagged it for refimprove. The tag was removed by User:Outriggr with a summary of "this n that"[30] so I readded with a fuller explanation of why[31]. Outrigger again removed[32] with a note of "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else." so I added again, wiht another explanation and posted a note to the talk page giving even further details.[33][34]. I also posted notes to the Book and Novel projects about the problem. This was on September 14th.

On the 16th, KillerChihuahua suddenly pops in and removes the tag again[35] with a summary of "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to acheive FA; overkill at least". As noted, I had already explained the concerns on the talk page, which he was clearly aware of as he requested I be more specific.[36] I again reiterated the lack of citations, which he responded to in a hostile fashion saying the tagging was a last resort and claiming I was uncivil and "template happy". I refuted the claim that templating is a "last resort" and went into further detail, specifying which sections and paragraphs were not cited. He was still not "happy" and continued to demand I be even more specific in an increasingly hostile and belligerent fashion and continues to deny that I have explained my concerns.[37][38] I finally got sick of being so attacked for noting a problem with the article, and as it seemed no one actually wanted to address the actual problem - lack of citations, instead of attack me for saying so, I went ahead and started the FAR.

On the 20th, SlimVirgin joined in the discussion, asking if I would be fixing the article myself and offering to "help" me do it[39] I declined to answer, so he posted to my talk page to reiterate the question.[40] I explained that I would not be responding there anymore after the hostile responses from KC, and that I had already started the FAR and would let the community discuss dealing with it.[41] SlimVirgin then tried to claim that I was engaging in "drive-by" tagging and that I was obligated to fix the article because I tagged it for having issues and because I started the WP:FAR on it, and repeating KC's claim that I was somehow spraying "graffitti" on the article because I tagged it. After a lengthy exchange,[42] I tired of the argument and removed it from my talk page. SlimVirgin then copied it to the talk page of the article, despite it having nothing to do with the article, so I removed my comments.[43] KC restored them, claiming I was trying to "change history"[44] and left me a level 3 warning for vandalism![45] He also modified my FAR to remove my notes indicating that I had attempted to have the article worked on before the FAR, claiming it was a personal attack[46] while leaving a real personal attack alone[47], not surprisingly this attack was also left by a third administrator User:GiacomoReturned. When another editor noted and removed it, KC deliberately restored it[48] saying "please discuss this with G.".

This has been a seriously upsetting experience and is not the sort of behavior I'd expect from any administrator, much less three. I violated no policies, no guidelines, and did nothing wrong except apparently dare to note that an old FA from 2005 no longer meets the featured article criteria and trying to prod someone to work on it. None of these administrators are listed as being in either the Books nor Novels project, neither had edited the article before this except SlimVirgin who apparently did one edit to it in 2005. So I'm baffled and confused as to why this seemingly coordinated attack has begun and with such an insane level of hostility and viciousness. To have so much attention, I can't help questioning what off-wiki activities might be behind it all. In either case, would like some neutral admins to review this situation and, hopefully, provide some assistance to stop this harassment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Too much to review quickly, but just to point out that User:GiacomoReturned is not an admin Well... Black Kite 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • ...and having looked at the article, that looks wildly undersourced for an FA, though I am not an expert on the subject matter. Black Kite 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Struck that part, misread his user page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Too long, didn't really read, but also didn't see anything that has anything to do with administration. Seems more like a content dispute. Perhaps if the complaint was concise and to the point...--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I can't make it much more concise without leaving out the appropriate support and history, which is usually asked for when doing AN/Is, especially regarding an admin. Short version, though, is I feel the two admins noted are harrassing and making personal attacks against me for pointing out a FA level article no longer meets the FA criteria and tagging it for needing more references, and KC, in particular, is being openly hostile, left a completely inappropriate level 3 vandalism warning on my page for removing my own comments copied elsewhere, and tried to refactor the FAR to remove my remarks claiming it is a personal attack while blatantly allowing an editor's personal attack in response to the FAR to remain. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Bit difficult in this case I think, because it's convoluted. I have to say that though that KillerChihuahua's vandalism warning strikes me as inappropriate, and restoring this one of Giano's comments whilst removing Collectonian's (which wasn't even a personal attack) strikes me as frankly ludicrous. Admin action needed though? Unsure. Black Kite 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• This is common behavior toward the nominator if any article affiliated with Geogre (talk · contribs) is nominated for FAR. I have personally experienced it and thought you were brave to nominate it. I have learned from experience that nothing is to be done about the resulting abuse except ignore it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)