Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Franamax (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 28 August 2008 (→‎Interpretation of the "threat": cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

    Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. S.D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One White cat 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

    Copy of IFD discussion

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).
    • Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unique image of an event about the subject itself, would not be replaceable as the debris has been removed. MBisanz talk 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      D'oh! --Damiens.rf 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

    • Hi, Mjroots. You haven't addressed the real concerns raised on the nomination. Please, explain how is it ok to take the image bbc spent money to produce and reproduce it freely on our website? --Damiens.rf 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The explanation under US law is at Fair use. Ty 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright isn't up for a vote

    The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One White cat 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, as a number of people have pointed out. Black Kite 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. S.D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree four of me would be unbearable. I would be forever getting into edit conflicts with myself over which of me would get to press the delete button first. Please don't quarter me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Action to be taken on Consensus violations

    We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, WP:NFCC#2 specifically addresses this issue. It's policy, all right. Kelly hi! 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, WP:NFCC does not mention press agencies. If you think it does, then please quote that mention. Ty 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • !vote ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)[reply]
    Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support (not sure this is a poll, but I agree with those saying "support") - the issues with this admin as discussed here and on AN (which Bzuk mentions) did not specifically follow on from one another, but they do appear to be different examples of some of the same issues. You can read my concerns in more detail in this section at AN. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Support, I have also expressed my concerns in some detail at this section at AN. Justin talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interesting discussion here regarding this. --John (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm coming here from that interesting discussion. I don't think the "involved" clause is what we are looking for here. If FPS is deleting images under CSD that don't meet those criteria, then that is a problem. If he is doing so as an application of the WP:SNOW clause, that also may be an error but it is less grievous. This is a much thornier problem than we seem to be treating it as. As I see it, very few actions can be justified post hoc as proper on the basis of some contingent outcome. By this I mean that if FPS deleted an image that "shouldn't have been deleted", then there was an error on his part. However, if it turns out that his deletion was "legitimate" (read: endorsed by DRV's, which almost all have been), then there was no error. That is a problem, because we can't base our valuation on his actions as "correct" on the basis of their outcome. But we also don't have much of a leg to stand on if his actions weren't wrong. In other words, if those images didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept as FU images, then all the talking in the world won't change things. As was said above, NFCC/COPY aren't up for a vote. We have those policies in place because the foundation tells us to. So how do we deal with this? DRV's support the outcome, which (presumably) means the deletion was proper. But it is inappropriate to justify curtailing of discussion based on eventual outcome. My suggestion is that the community admonish FPS to not be a jerk about things but that we hold off on what is looking to be a snowy endorsement of a community reprimand for violating WP:CONSENSUS. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, actually, NFCC is always up for a vote. The foundation requires that each project establish it's own criteria for fair use, but it doesn't dictate the content of those policies. Please stop spreading the meme that somehow parts NFCC are not up for debate. As with all things on this project, consensus changes, especially when it comes to portions that are being misapplied. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact wording may be up for debate, but the spirit isn't. No valid wording (no matter how many support!'s you can count) would allow the use of those images Fut.Perfs deleted. This is the eternal skirmish of an unpopular policy. People like images, you know, and they get angry when we say "you shouldn't have been copying images from Associated Press". People don't read the upload page warnings. And there's this common misconception that for every image you'll find on google, there's an hypothetical non-free-content-rationale that would allow it to be used. --Damiens.rf 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enthusiastically support everything Damiens said here. All too often at IFD we run into a large number of people who aren't discussing an image based on policy, but how much they like the image. Take this discussion, for instance, where a number of people commented on the need to retain the image based solely on how much they liked looking at Paris Hilton's face, completely disregarding the policy at the NFCC. While I think all administrators should wait until a deletion discussion is over (if one is started) and that they should probably refrain from deleting images for discussions they participated in (though I don't know that this ever happened), I find no fault in any actions that Future Perfect has taken. He, like Betacommand before, has been willing to make tough calls on images which, when analyzed strictly from a policy standpoint, are almost always upheld. This also tends to make him a magnet for criticism when the primary grievance appears to be the policy with which his actions are executed. I think the distinction there is important for the purposes of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The extent to which we use fair use, both in letter and in spirit is determined by the community. The foundation mandated we have an EDP, but the community decides how liberal we are. Note that the Wikinews community even allows Grant of License images under their EDP, which is basically cc-by-nd. So yes, if the community decides that we should start allowing cc-by-nd, then we are free to do so. It is not our mission to produce and house redistributable media, that is commons' mission. We are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia that is as free as possible. While free is always preferred and a reasonable effort to obtain free should always be expended, we can and we should consider fair use if it enhaces the quality of the article. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong speech, but empty arguments. What you says goes directly against WP:5P. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? In what way? --John (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia is free content", I presume. A decent amount of people strongly dislike using fair use images at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is immediately followed by "...that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly." (my emphasis) This project still allows fair use of images. If people don't like that, they should either find another project to volunteer for, or work in the proper ways to change our mission. To say this is against WP:5P shows ignorance of WP:5P. --John (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, in order to accuse FPS of taking an image to DRV in order specifically to shift the burden of proof over deletion, we need to prove as much. It is a pretty bold accusation. Far more likely to me is that FPS is speedying images that he feels fall under the CSD while there disagreement over that very fact exists. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's rather irrelevant whether he's doing so intentionally, as the practical result is that this is what's happening. In an IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong-enough argument that consensus will support the deletion of the image. Once the image is deleted, though, at DRV the burden shifts to the supporters of keeping the image to show that the deletion was improper or incorrect. By closing IfDs as "deletes" against the consensus of the debate, FPS's action helps to ensure that the image will stay deleted, as he argues that NFCC policy (his interpretation, of course) trumps the debate's consensus, thus playing the "policy card". Whether he behavior is intentional or not is irrelevant, it still ends up with usable images being deleted because while they withstood the lighter burden of IfD, the supporters can't muster the strength to overcome at DRV in the face of what seems like legitimate policy concerns. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support action on him: the NFCC is fine; disregarding consensus is not. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support FPS (and others) seem to have the notion that their understanding of NFCC policy is policy, and they behave accordingly. FPS has ignored consensus numerous times in deleting images, and has done so with, at times, uncivil and authoritarian language. He has threatened blockage for one-time restorations of images that were incorrectly removed from articles, as being "edit-warring", and has generally used his administrative powers to further his personal (and extreme) conception of what image policy should be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something I do think that the way he goes about things is in need of some correction. Just because he gets calls right, or even if he got all calls right, does not excuse him from being civil or from other policies. To what extent correction is required is probably better decided in an environment other than ANI (Perhaps a RFC?). Narson (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock

    Attention please, It seems to me obvious that Bracha Ettinger is being removed from everywhere for political reasons. Ettinger is an activist for human rights and fighting for rights of Palestinians in israel. Some people therefore consider that she should disappear from visuality. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere. Anybody who has doubts can look at Google Books and Google Scholars. I am going to proceed to put her bak where she was removed from, since this seems completely unjustified. I tend to believe that this kind of censorship should not be permitted on Wikipedia. Artethical (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar[1] to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

    Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.[2]

    The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

    I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

    I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

    The articles in question are:

    --Cailil talk 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil talk 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia.
    Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ([3] [4]) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.
    Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T [5] (who was banned from Wikipedia). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try[6] without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search [7] is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil talk 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.
    Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
    The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.
    And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil talk 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at this: [8] [9] (1600 hits on Wikipedia) [10] (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

    She is so famous she has only article in the French Wikipedia (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

    I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She's faculty at the European Graduate School: [11]. They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Wikipedia, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil talk 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil talk 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well now, User:Ori Redler has just started doing exactly the same thing as the IPs (see their recent contribs). MOdernist has just asked for an explanation--Cailil talk 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I got an account.
    2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Wikipedia
    3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
    4. She is non-notable
    5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
    6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
    7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Wikipedia. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.
    I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break

    Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. [12] shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman☿ 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil talk 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil talk 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly I am convinced that the Bracha Ettinger story is exposed as hoax, fakery and sockpuppetry. I've removed Ettinger from Women artists and Postmodern art because frankly she never belonged in those articles in the first place. She was placed on a list that read: "it was painting of the artists Valerio Adami, Daniel Buren, Marcel Duchamp, Bracha Ettinger and Barnett Newman that, after the avant-garde's time and the painting of Paul Cézanne and Wassili Kandinsky, was the vehicle for new ideas of the sublime in contemporary art." - its way beyond where she belongs to be, and she's listed but it's clearly a contrived addition...We have to be careful to realize that she is basically notable, and she has authored published essays and books and she has exhibited her paintings in galleries and museums - but like many other notable figures in the art world she is largely obscure and simply isn't that well known....yet. Modernist (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It a mess - Ettinger belongs in certain articles with certain mentions and she should be removed from places that she does not belong..like lists of enormously important and famous contributors to art and science. Although she belongs on more general lists of artists and scientists. She belongs where she is referenced specifically and should be removed where the mention is simply ambiguous. Modernist (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Eyes please on List of painters by name. Ty 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back. I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes.....Modernist (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • more IPS
    85.250.86.53 (Talk);
    89.139.9.85 (Talk);
    89.0.12.202;
    89.138.185.137;
    93.172.35.29;
    89.138.174.146;
    89.0.9.203;
    89.139.239.124;
    89.138.161.140;
    89.139.191.198
    Ugh. The G-hits from my linked search at the top of this section revealed the following 50 articles which had mentions of Ettinger. At a guess, from the text I saw in the various hits, probably 50%-75% of them may be gratuitous insertions. I'd bet histories will reveal recent activity by our rouge IPs on these articles. I'm going to sleep.

    Women artists The Matrix Robert Doisneau Psychoanalytic theory Psychoanalysis Postmodern feminism Postmodern art Other Luce Irigaray List of psychology topics List of psychoanalytical theorists List of postmodern critics List of painters by name List of French artists List of feminists List of female philosophers List of contemporary artists Linda Nochlin Julia Kristeva Jacques Lacan Jacques Derrida Influences and interpretations of The Matrix History of feminism Hans Prinzhorn Hélène Cixous Griselda Pollock Gender Gender studies Gaze French structuralist feminism Film theory Feminist theory Feminist philosophy Feminist film theory Feminism Feminism in France Feminism and the Oedipus complex Félix Guattari Eva Hesse Eurydice European Graduate School Emmanuel Levinas Drawing Center Cultural studies Christine Buci-Glucksmann Bracha L. Ettinger Art history Antigone Aesthetics Écriture féminine

    Pigman☿ 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to add that Ettinger was one of the only women artists on whom Lyotard was constantly writing and lecturing. This is for example now a subject of a chapter in a book Gender after Lyotard. I think that we must realize that there is an effort to ruin Ettinger's name and reputation, and we don't know why and by whom.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    part 2

    The attacks against Bracha L. Ettinger are continuing. An anonymous acting from different Israeli IP's is removing all mentions of this artist from different articles with the untrue explanation that there is a consensus to remove her from major topics.

    There is no such consensus. My guess is that this user is deleting mentions of Ettinger just because the information about her was added by User:Marina T., who is suspected to be related to the notorious Israeli troll User:Nnimrodd. This suspicion was never properly confirmed, and in any case, the info about Ettinger appears to be sourced and not blatantly self-promotional.

    I agree with the position of Phil Sandifer in the discussion above ("Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock") - it is possible that Ettinger is not be the most notable feminist, psychoanalyst or artist and in that case she shouldn't be mentioned in every article on these topics, but such drive-by removal of her name from every place without proper consensus is definitely wrong.

    Also, this frequent IP changing is worrying and the user already admitted that he is "changing my IP after each edit for security reasons". If he would be acting in good faith, he wouldn't have to change his IP all the time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and i forgot to mention that this anonymous editor wrote personal attacks in Hebrew on my talk page twice. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how close are the IPs being used? Any chance of a rangeblock? Alternatively, you can watch and perhaps semiprotect the relevant articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the earlier thread User:NZQRC seems to admit being the one who was editing from all those IPs. Looks like he made a few posts, then went back to his old tactics. It's a shame because his arguments for many of these edits actually were getting some traction, but it looks like he'd rather be disruptive by hopping IPs every two minutes so that no one can engage him in discussion. If there's any way he can be encouraged to stick to his registered and stand up like a man (woman?) and make a case for what he's doing, he and the project would be much better served. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to Stephen, the IPs mostly resolve to Haifa - and NZQRC is going through a huge volume of them. I don't know if a range block is possible - it will take a significant amount of time and effort just to identify the removals and the IPs involved. As it stands NZQRC is not blocked - I'm bordering on blocking them per WP:DUCK for using multiple accounts (IPs) to avoid scrutiny. This behaviour is beyond the WP:SPIDER level of disruption--Cailil talk 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack. The ducks are now blocked at midnight. Given the persistence we may see more, though. A good article for people to watchlist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IPs are also having a go at any articles with Ettinger mentioned. See Modernist's contributions for where he has reverted. Ty 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IPS are growing, I think admins have to start blocking them wholesale. It's beyond reason, something is rotten. Modernist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that it's fun, but please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Last chance: The German Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia after the English one. Now check those links: [13], [14] [15] (most of the results came from this photo [16]). You can do the same in every Wikipedia you want except the French Wikipedia (she's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.161 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    ←Thanks Modernist and to everyone else for their diligence in tracking this problem. I'm implementing an emergency semi-protection on all the articles where Modernist reverted NZQRC's IPs (this will exclude the articles where she may be unduely represented). This will be a week long semi-protection. Also I had been blocking these IPs for 3 days. I'm now going to reblock, the one's I've already caught, for a month and then block the next lot for a month too. If any one thinks any of this is overly harsh just drop me a line--Cailil talk 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious matter of the elimination and defamation of Bracha Ettinger is clarified through the Facebook of Ori Redler. Ori Redler is an extrem right wing Israeli who is working via right wing Jewish lists to eliminate Bracha L. Ettinger because her name is associated to a list of Israeli jews from the left who are activists for Human Rights. They consider Ettinger wrongly to be anti-Israeli and anti-jewish, eventhough she is israeli and a daughter of Holocaust survivers. Since Redler is working through lists, many people together are working to eliminate her and reduce her importance. This is a political purge: message was passed though lists to eliminate her name. This explains why the eliminations of Bracha L. Ettinger come from many ip adresses at the same time. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere it was taken out, and calling upon the Administrators to follow each vandalization of Ettinger and restore to the previous state. I am asking the administrators to help my restoring efforts. 87.69.90.201 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a response by the Israeli troll Nimrod Kamer (AKA User:Marina T.) who created this article. Ignore him and don't believe him - He is a lair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.30.218 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find any proof to this claim. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    part 3

    I've started Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NZQRC - all the IPs listed have been blocked until the 26th of September 2006. Can anyone who finds any further NZQRC socks please tag the IP's talk pages with {{sockpuppet|NZQRC}}--Cailil talk 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3 more - tagged but unblocked:User talk:89.139.239.124; - User talk:89.0.9.203; - User talk:89.138.56.247; Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They're blocked now--Cailil talk 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually they are tagged but I don't see a block Modernist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can check it in their block logs[17][18] - the templates saying "you've been blocked" are manually added and I forgot to add them here. But i've fixed that now--Cailil talk 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In an attempt to reduce the number of protected pages we have, I am going through articles Ettinger is currently inappropriately linked in and removing her, then unprotecting as that article is, presumably, no longer a target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, good. At least a few of us will have the pages watch-listed in case of any further funny business--Cailil talk 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Phil - that's the best way to handle this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a thought, but do we know about any other purging of Nimrod Kamer additions (some of which will be spam, others not)? This is a link to the dashboard for User:Nnimrodd, and this is the one for User;Marina T.
    From a quick glance at these I would watch Joshua Simon, Michal Heiman, Herzliya Biennial, Michail Grobman, Efrat Abramov and what links to their articles. Also take a look here for even more--Cailil talk 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am watching them.
    No doubt, Nimrod Kamer and Marina T. wrote a lot of cruft in Wikipedia and i purged everything that didn't fit established notability policies, but what remains looks reasonable to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bracha Ettinger is being now systematically persecuted and her name deleted from everywhere probably because she is an activist for human rights in Israel. Her name is being now purged, massacred and deleted by person(s) who write defamatory and untrue information on her. For example she was deleted from the Women Artists page since it was claimed by User:Ori Redler that she was not a participating artist in the show Inside the Visible. Ettinger was in fact both a participant artist in the show AND a contributer to the book. Apparently there is a vicious attack going on all over the place on a major artist, theorist and feminist, who is also a courageous fighter for human rights and a model for many young artists and feminists. I invite the editors to consult Google Books and Google Scholars, and to help to restore her name and dignity. User who deletes her name so bluntly from all over the place and give misinformation should in my view be blocked. Artethical (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are, without question, places where she should be mentioned on Wikipedia. However, and I say this as someone well acquainted with the field, putting her on the same level as Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva in Gender Studies, or saying that, along with Rorty and Barthes, she is one of the major descendants of Lyotard is ludicrous. She's a fine scholar, but she's not on that level at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects

    Recently User:Alden Jones, joined revert war [19] on the page that he never edited before, and came up with reveletion on his previous revert warring. Alden stated that he was asked off-wiki by some en-wiki user to make these reverts[20]. Leaving the question who this user asking for revert favours might be, I'd like to bring to the attention Alden's editing record.

    User:Alden Jones who also happens to be Juguu/Cetzer/Zun/Zunpl/Prasuk historyk/Prasuk/Tramman/Karu/Frank3 (that is not full list) on various wikiprojects was indef blocked at pl.wiki and according to ArbCom of pl.wiki involved in block evasion, hoaxing and abusive socking, confirmed by checkuser (socks Karu, Juguu, Cetzer, IP 80.54.94.196, 195.117.128.81) [21]. Alden's socking is extensively covered also at pl.wikibooks during his attempt at adminship there [22].

    His rich blocklog at pl.wiki [23] includes off-wiki harassment, disruption, block evasion, spamming.

    Pl.wiki was not the only one hit by Alden's socking. Disruptive socking is also recorded at en. wiki: IP 212.122.214.173 who is clearly Frank3 [24], who clearly is Alden Jones (also Pawel, also from Bydgoszcz - common self-identification by this user's accounts on different wikiprojects) vandalized this userpage [25].

    Same disruptive activities of this IP have been recorded at wikinews. But there this IP is connected to yet another Alden's persona "Prasuk historyk/Prasuk" [26]

    And then this circus. Alden vandalized other user's userpage as IP [27], and removed his vandalism logged in as Alden Jones [28]

    Personal attacks is another issue that must be addressed. After his failed adminship at Wikinews Alden went on this trolling rampage [29][30], later he apologized. This reminds me recent incident. These brutal personal attacks "troll get lost from article about polish"[31][32] were followed by apologies [33]

    Now again he makes remarks towards admin that blocked him, implying that to block him and trolling is the same thing "in this situation block would be trolling. " [34]

    This cycle of trolling and vandalism followed by apologies makes me think that we have a case of WP:NOTTHERAPY here, and there is no solution but complete project (not just en.wiki or pl.wiki) ban. ----- M0RD00R (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd be inclined to go along with this. His responses to any sort of corrections seem to be "mind your own business"; for example, I can't said why did I revert --- this my business, so please don't more ask about it me, because I won't answer on your questions about my reverts in response to my objecting to a blind revert on his part. He's admitted he's acting as a proxy for someone else: But I've reverted it for requests one of user EN-Wiki. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. This sort of disruption isn't helpful at all, regardless of where he's doing it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked Alden to create content, instead of revert warring and personal attacks. Even through he seems to like me, he does not heed my requests, and only "helps" by occasionally popping up and reverting in some articles I am involved with. I can do without such "help". If he does more random reverts or civility attacks, I believe his record speaks for himself... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's strange about your request to Alden, Piotrus, is that he claimed another user asked him to revert on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. True enough, he did turn up after a three weeks + absence in the middle of your edit war, and reverted to your version. No-one else was reverting to your version except you. So who was asking him, if not you? Your guardian angel?

    The day ends, and you resume next day busying about, doing your thing. Then at 2034 GMT Alden lets it out, [35], someone urged him, and soon after you're at his page warning him in public not to revert but to create content. I saw this going on, and, weak as I am, suspected there might be some truth in the course of events. I was wondering either how my perception could be mistaken or else how on earth you'd try to escape that, and when I saw your post I quite honestly cringed. It was exactly what I expected you to do, as you'd left him a similar message after he'd helped you in a previous edit war. So it appeared to be pure ostentatious orchestration. Now in your proposed arbcom hearing you've come up with a story about him being a devoted fan who worships you, and follows you about reverting to your version in hope of Kudos from a great man such as yourself, rather than at your instigation. But in spite of this it looks more like you've taken on a "pet dog" that's turned out to be too wild to control.

    Creativity aside, either this looks pretty bad for you, Piotrus, as the bad part of me was thinking, or I'm missing something really important here. It's the evidence as far as I see it that is bad here, not my faith. So please tell me, what am I missing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing that looks bad is your bad faith. Alden once told me he considers me a "wiki hero", follows my edits and every now and he likes to "help" me by reverting to my version. He IMs me often (on average once per day... I am considering blocking him from my IM), I usually ignore him or tell him to do something constructive with his time... and apparently a few times he thought "being constructive" is stalking my edits and "helping" me by reverting to my version (and several times he reverted perfectly good edits and I had to revert him...). He has poor command of English, but likes to use it and sometimes even I cannot understand his explanations. I told him to stop reverting and to concentrate on creating content, so far with little effect (see my posts to him on his talk page). I am not going to defend him (block him and good riddance), but I resent your meatpuppetry accusations. I am again disappointed, Deacon, in your judgment that instead of trying to help me deal with this problematic user (you have never even asked me about him on my talk page), you are starting by accusing me of meatpuppetry here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Piotrus, that's what you said on the Arbcom. But the evidence, including his own testimony, suggests that you recruited Alden and got him to edit war for you, however you've agreed to present your relationship publicly. The evidence is against you, Piotrus, not just my faith. G'nite. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "evidence"? Care to share it with anybody? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think playing dumb is going to help either. Certainly has no effect on me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, this is pretty unseemly while a RFAR involving both of you is underway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there is actual evidence, the claims by Alden Jones prove nothing. It is entirely possible that Alden Jones "helps" Piotus to intentionally discredit him. I have seen recently how a user was blocked for "meatpuppetry" because he was stalked by an IP who pretended to "help" him.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting indeed. For the record, I am pretty sure Alden really thought he was helping; he is a naive teenager and I believe recently I've finally managed to convince him not to revert again... PS. I just had a thought: given Alden's poor knowledge of English, the request he got might have not been encouraging him to revert, but discouraging him - and he simply misunderstood it. Since this is much more likely (Ockham razor), and kills the conspiration theory, that's my current explanation for this incident. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many new redirects

    Recently, many new business redirects involving pages such as Kennametal, John Wiley & Sons, Jefferies & Company, Kinetic Concepts, ITT Technical Institute, etc, which can be found here. Some of these changes conform to MoS guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)), but others, like "Graco Inc." to "Graco (fluid handling)" do not, as it says to use "Inc" for disambiguation purposes. Also, he drops "Corp" sometimes and adds "Corporation" other times.

    Could some of the worse redirects be deleted? (note, originally posted 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) and changed later to reflect the concern and later information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I undertstand what you're getting at. Whiskeydog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made no page moves but has created a bunch of redirects from full company names to the actual article. If the MOS says that the article and redirect should be swapped then just do it. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, created a bunch of redirects. Why? It is rather standard to link directly instead of creating redirects. It appears that they are all connected to S&P 400. I guess each page needs to be hunted down and linked to directly, instead of being redirected. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine to link through a redirect - in fact it's preferable to piping a link because there is less potential for issues with the backlinks. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I renamed the topic accordingly. It doesn't seem to be as a big issue, but will need someone to clean up the links to be direct, at least in a few important cases. A few of the Wikilinks seem unnecessary as their original names are improper and will need to be deleted after the original link is fixed (Belo Corp. (New), Gallagher(Arthur J.), and Zebra Technologies'A' in particular). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The company name formatting sucks, but it's what S&P uses on its charts. See [36] Any change to the exact formatting misses the point (mentioned below). Whiskeydog (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As CIreland says, redirects are fine; see WP:R2D. There's also a chance of someone typing that into the search box. --NE2 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] Not really an ANI issue I don't think; I wish you'd have asked me directly first. The above editors have already explained Ottava Rima's misinterpretation—no page moves have taken place. I'll address the redirects. Yes, these redirects may appear to be rather "cruddy", but redirects are cheap, and there is a rationale. They are the business names used by S&P in its lists of stock market index constituents. The redirects allow articles like S&P 400 and S&P 600 to be updated, from scratch if necessary, with constituent data that can be wikilinked without having to be piped. (Any piping that was done to the articles' links would be lost if the tables were generated from scratch data. If the lists are kept up to date, it's a hypothetical issue, but they're generally not.) Whiskeydog (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, Whiskey. I only wanted the redirects of poor names to be deleted. It would be best having them not show up in searches if they are not used. I don't think you have the ability to do that, unless you are an admin and no one knows :). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - (because some people wondered), I mentioned Whiskeydog, but I did not contact him, as he isn't really needing to be involved per se , except as the source of changes (as it isn't a complaint against him). The only thing necessary is to delete a lot of bad links that were originally started from the S&P 400 page (redlinks turned to redirects, I assume). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with WhiskeyDog (and I created some of these redirects as well: see my contributions here): please do not delete any of them. Any "fixes" (including pipes) of the company names in the List of S&P 500 companies, S&P 400 and S&P 600 articles get overwritten when these 3 artcles are automatically updated for changes in their constituents. Redirects are cheap, and in fact, even though they appear strange, these are frequent search terms from outside WP because S&P is such a significant source of data on companies, and so having them is very useful to WP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm convinced by that. I didn't realize that this came from an S & P naming convention, which apparently conflicts with Wikipedia. Since it is such an important thing, the redirects are obviously notable enough alternative titles and shouldn't be deleted. Should we list the S&P name on the individual articles also? Or is this not necessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the S&P name is necessary on the encyclopedic article; there would seem to be much more encyclopedic information that should go into the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope

    For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]
    Here are diffs of warnings: [42] [43] [44] [45] Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thinking that, judging from the tone of the reverts, as well as the snippy on Jayjg's page, that this dispute is far from over. and in fact will prolly lead to a block. While a calm voice does help, when one is reverted, the time for discussion is then not after an ANI thread is begun. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prolly" a block, you say? Edison2 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Prolly = probably. And yes, while the well of Good Faith does spring Eternal, some of that headwater peters out when some folk abuse it too much. I am guestimating that the user has a tiny bit of good faith left, and it won't help them the next time they go flippant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to give my perspective of this dispute and point out that I'd been acting in good faith. From my perspective, you have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book, he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives then he says I can't judge his motives. This didn't appear to me to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). I didn't think it was OR either because it does not really require any interpretation at all. There didn't seem to me to be any real BLP issue, either. Cornwell's words seem to be plainly and unequivocally a recantation or retraction with regard to Pius' motive - I can't imagine that Cornwell, himself, would even object to calling it recantation or retraction. The edits merely called his statemetn what they were. And to show how reasonable that characterization is and the fact that I was acting in good faith, you can see that at least two books have made this same characterization (using the word recant or retract): Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope p. 138. Also, his words were characterized the same way numerous other publications: the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosopher Michael Novak. If I am mistaken about BLP and OR policies with regard to this matter, so be it, but I was acting in good faith. I don't think my position was unreasonable considering these other characterizations of Cornwell's statement. I understand in retrospect that I should have acted more moderately, addressed the issue on the talk page or perhaps found a cited source. I will keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.Mamalujo (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fact tags and User:76.90.224.167

    This IP address [46] has taken it upon himself to remove stuff with fact tags on it. That's basically his only activity, other than copping an attitude [47] toward various users who have challenged him on it. [48] Is this appropriate behavior? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm there is a couple of points here. I don't think he has support for removing material with a fact tag. I don't agree that adding a fact tag is challenging the material, I personally have added the tags because i felt that things should be cited not because i think they are not true. Having said that, I don't think he is "copping an attitude" because he disagrees.

    As for removing the welcome message, he has every right to do that if he wants to and the person edit warring to add it 3 times is out of line IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, another user edit warring over a welcome message is silly. I would probably delete it myself if I were the IP, and an editor has the right to delete most anything he wants from his talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most (not all) of the edits seem to be reasonable removal of uncited original research, thus "While some suggest...", "Still others believe that...", "It is believed that...". The attitude could do with an improvement though, as you say. Black Kite 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By "copping an attitude" I mean that he says he's going to continue regardless, and he won't answer challenges. I don't disagree that at least some of what he's zapping looks like off-the-wall OR stuff. It caught my attention due to the Apollo hoax article. But by deleting this stuff, it deprives others of the chance to find sources, since they will likely be unaware of it unless they schlog through an article's history. The stuff he deleted from the Apollo hoax article, for example, looks like legitimate questions raised by hoax believers, and simply needs to be sourced. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually most of what he removed certainly isn't legit questions, but pure bollocks :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right. And I've been known to delete such stuff myself. But at least I'll talk to someone who challenges it. And in the case of the Apollo hoax article, which is what brought this user to my attention [49] at least some of it looks like questions that hoaxsters have raised, and deleting it is liable to fuel claims of censorship. About that specific article, I've alerted one of that page's most frequent editors. In the case of the others, there are various editors who've challenged him and his answer amounts to "I don't care what you think". Not good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I believe is currently blocked or just coming off a block, has been known to delete any and all information that's been fact-tagged, (see this) and refuse to talk about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hebrew wikipedia

    Resolved
     – Since the user in question has already been blocked here for making legal threats, this is pretty much a non-issue. There's nothing we can do about off-wiki behavior; even if they act up on hewiki, it would be inappropriate to take any action there (which we, as enwiki admins, can't do anyway). I'm emailing all this to Mike Godwin, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, the Hebrew wikipedia is threatening to sue us as seen here --Thanks, Hadseys 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Translation? Algebraist 11:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's it say? I don't think most of us can read Hebrew. --erachima talk 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Hebrew, but that revision doesn't seem to exist. Anyway, "the Hebrew Wikipedia" can't sue "the English Wikipedia", so I don't understand what the point is. Kusma (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a joke? Bstone (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, it doesn't say anything about suing. The translation of the current page is:
    Hello, I am Sheva-Shalosh (Seven-Three), Proud Israeli and Zionist. I wrote on the English Wikipedia and suffered a bit from antisemitic repression, whilst also corresponding about it with Israelis and Jews from all over the world. Thus I crossed over to the Hebrew Wikipedia.
    However, User:Shevashalosh was blocked on en.wiki for making legal threats. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds like he. already dealt with the issue then? --erachima talk 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Her blog makes interesting reading though. "Wikipdians Jews against discrimination". Here she does talk about suing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My browser displays both an english and a hebrew message:
    Wikipdians Jews against discrimination

    Wikipdians Jews against discrimination


    Have you suffered from Anti-Semitic discrimination on English Wikipedia?

    If so, we are getting organized,

    Please write to: shevashalosh@nana10.co.il

    So we can go to the press, and later file a lawsuit against English Wikipedia.

    Send a mail to organizer - User:shevashalosh

    I was sent an email about it presumably because I' Jewish --Thanks, Hadseys 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The site lists Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign as an example of antisemitism here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent an email reading:
    I'm Mm40 on the English Wikipedia (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mm40 )
    I have no idea what you're talking about. I have suffered from nothing of what you are saying.
    In addition, the English Wikipedia is not a separate organization. You would have to sue the Wikimedia Foundation together. Anyways, you are being :unreasonable. Please stop, you're wasting your time.
     Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, the best thing to do when you come across something like this is probably to take the issue to the wikipedia (or whatever) involved since they can do something about it if it's a violation of their policies (which it was in this case). In the Hebrew wikipedia, that's He:שיחת ויקיפדיה:שגרירות and see Wikipedia:Embassy if it's some other wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity, do the arabic and hebrew wikipediae understand that as a sister wikipediae they are bound to the core principle of WP:NPOV? Are there folks checking their contentious articles to make sure that ethnocentric biases are not slanting the usual suspects? How are the I/P articles? Are they more polarized than ours? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE I have seen Jimbo personally say that anything legal related should just be sent direct to Mike Godwin, our lawyer.--mboverload@ 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I've seen User:shevashalosh in action, and his boneheadedness is so blatant that the people on Israeli Wikipedia won't be able to miss it. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Productive socks

    I have blocked two socks of community banned users: User:Kostan1 is a sock of User:M.V.E.i. and User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is a sock of User:HanzoHattori. For the proof see User_talk:Biophys#Good_work in the hindsight it seems quite obvious.

    Both socks earned a few short blocks on their own right but overall were reasonably constructive and IMHO have done much more constructive work than disruption. I do not feel indefinite banning them is in the best interests of the project.

    I propose to change the community bans to community civility parole and community 1RR per day restriction for the period of one year. Lets say any administrator could block them for the period of up to 1 week for incivility of revert warring (more than one revert per article per day). Three such blocks would mean restoring of the community ban. Thus, they would have a very little room to disrupt but all the possibilities in the world to contribute constructively.

    As they are of the opposite POV I feel it is good to keep the restrictions to be equal to avoid supporting a particular POV. Although in my opinion Hanzo was less disruptive than M.V.E.i.

    Any thoughts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the proposal. Alæxis¿question? 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the evidence and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i, plus a cursory look at their block log, I would feel extremely uncomfortable removing the community ban of M.V.E.i. (block log). I haven't yet had time to review the situation for HanzoHattori (block log), but unless they are related shouldn't we be discussing them separately anyway? — Satori Son 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I understand these two users edit some of the same articles, but I still think unban proposals should be discussed individually. If others agree, perhaps we should start a subsection for each? — Satori Son 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure of the premises here. You blocked two accounts for violating WP policies, but wish to limit the sanction because they have good contributions - even though they are obviously the socks of other accounts who have been banned for using socks to continue their POV compaigns? If I am right, you are advocating the rewarding of a couple of editors whose recent accounts were used for some edit warring by permitting them to continue while the ratio of vandalism to good edits is... "reasonable"? Nope, sorry! As you have had to block them, again, it is evident that the editors are trying to game the system and have not moved on from their previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly object to M.V.E.i ever being unblocked, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons. Not very familiar with HattoriHanzo, although what I saw of Captain Obvious suggested his heart is in the right place, albeit he has civility issues. Neıl ☄ 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a distinction should be made here. I don't really know M.V.E.I. here but I've seen reports of him creating sock puppets all too much. How many accounts has he created? As for user HanzoHattori/Captain Obvious, assuming that they indeed are the same person, let's recall what got him banned in the first place. HanzoHattori was banned by an admin after he made a bad remark about this admin. This was an extremely dumb move, and in part may have been motivated by bad circumstances and said health problems he had back then. His ban seems to have been protested back then as well. I think that an attempt to give this user limited acces again to wikipedia would be addressed anyway at some point in the future, because he created and updated a lot of good articles to wikipedia. So yes, I support this move, looking back that a ban in the first place may have been far too strict. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All users are different. This can only be decided individually. I agree with Neil and Satori Son that M.V.E.i. should not be unblocked. As about "Captain", I would like to see a checkuser report.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely no way should M.V.E.i. ever be unbanned. Do we need racist, neo-fascist trolls contributing to WP? No thanks, I think we have plenty already. I'm amazed this has even been raised again. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of proposed unban of HanzoHattori

    I agree with User:LessHeard vanU and would strongly object to ever unblocking HanzoHattori, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons and the community noted that they had shown an incredible amount of tolerance to him[50]. We should not essentially reward a banned user for ban evasion, socking and violating policy - not to mention Hanzo's sock continued to break 3RR (3 times in a month-check Captain Obvious' block log) and continued to be uncivil-""Fuck this shit, I'm outta here"[51].

    For those unfamilar with Hanzo, his incivility was dreadful. Here are just a few examples:

    I wanted to post here so Mr. Bot would fuck off[52]

    what the fuck[53]

    Fuck you Wikipedia.[54]

    Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass[55]

    Yes, note this. You can kiss my ass too. [56]

    Blanked page and replaced with lol wikipedia[57]

    Another Fuck you wikipedia [58]

    God dammn. WHAT THE FUCK?[59]

    "Well, I've got sort of a pretty bad real life crisis, I'm unemployed but I have a chronic depression and the meds don't really help, so the nonsense like this should be the last thing for me to take seriously about now. You know, I wanted to leave anyway, but I found myself too addicted and also I lied to myself that what I'm doing has any importance. So if they think I was doing a shitty job, fine, I'm not going to BAAAWWWW about this and I wasted my time enough. In short, Wikipedia is worthless, my life suck, and I should instead get off the internets and get my shit together. (Which I probably won't anyway)."[60]

    This user clearly has serious issues. As another user noted at his permanent ban proposal, wikipedia is not therapy. Community endorsed bans are given for a reason, we should not reward users for evading bans, not to mention that his sock continued his incivility and edit warring. Allowing an unblock of Hanzo would set a procedural fairness (a legal concept where everyone is entitled to the same procedure) precedent - we would have to tell all banned users "you are banned but if you evade your ban and your sock acts nice then we'll let you come back".--Miyokan (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you have a grudge towards this user, Miyokan. As you yourself have also been nominated for a 1revert limit before I don't think the paragraphs you've written above should influince administrators decisions.
    Many of the incivility comments that you seem to have archived are from his old account, and the post about his health problems was under emotional circumstances after he was banned. I agree with Alex Bakharev, this user has also proved himself to be a great contributer. Considering his incivility I would like to address that back then his health problems may have attributed to his, so I'm also in favour of a second chance. Grey Fox (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also strongly hesitate in having Hanzo unbanned. He's made positive contributions, yes, but valid edits aren't a currency that one can exchange for immunity to our civility policies. He's incredibly antagonistic, and I'd rather we not reward his inability to make the much-needed attitude adjustments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to comment about the "old account/health problems" thing, please. I have as much belief that Hanzo's long-standing antagonistic attitude was tied to "health problems" as I do that a unicorn will chase the Easter Bunny out in front of my car on the way home. The diffs above are from earlier this year; I first blocked him for personal attacks in 2007, and his first block (for edit warring) was in 2006. This is not some sort of "incivility flare-up" that is a largely isolated incident; it's a perpetual behavioral issue, and one that I don't see any clear evidence has been cleared up (especially since CO's "smartasses" comment[61] sounds exactly like the Hanzo of old, and CO has already garnered himself some blocks for edit warring). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanzo and all his socks should be indef'd. We don't need this behavior nor disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're the one who banned him in the first place right? Don't you think you've been way too strict? It could have been a long ban instead of a permaban. The only problem with this editor is that he occasionally uses swear words, in the same style as rappers do in the states. Grey Fox (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had good experiences with Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog - and with HanzoHattori in the past. I support his unblock, and as I said some time ago, we should put spirit (of encyclopedia building) above the letter of our wiki-laws: if a banned user proves he is useful, unban him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how calling an anon editor a fag[62], or lobbing childish "your mom" jokes[63], or just flat-out calling someone an idiot[64] is in the "spirit of encyclopedia building". If he can't make positive contributions and follow our civility policies, he shouldn't be here; end of story. It's a collaborative environment, and he has issues collaborating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw someone getting a 2-day block for far worse behaviour (if you want I can show you). Why are these uncivil comments (perhaps against anonymous vandal users) from a year and half ago worth a permaban? Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the ones I cited in my block of him from May of 2007. I've got better things to do with my time than to sort through his more recent stuff; he's a problem editor, has been for a long time, and is still excessively antagonistic. User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 2#Geez... clearly shows that attempts had been made for him to improve his attitude, yet he hasn't. I've yet to see any reason that the ban shouldn't stick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this editor wants to return to the project as a purely constructive editor, nothing is stopping them from doing so under a new user name. The sock demonstrate that this isn't someone who has exactly found themself locked out of the project by the ban to begin with, so they clearly know enough to create a new account. If they are serious about being a non-disruptive member of the community, it is almost in their best interest to just start new. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But Captain was blocked exclusively for being an alleged sockpuppet of HanzoHattory, not for any specific disruption. I had extensive communication with HanzoHattori (much less with the "Captain" recently). I actively argued with him on various occasions. I found him much more collaborative than a number of users who currently edit here. I would actually call him a "neutrality fighter", who was much less biased than me (that is why we argued). He was a strong enforcer of WP:NPOV policy, but an impatient one. And he was extremely productive. Yes, his irony and occasionally incivility was a problem, but I think a civility parole would be sufficient. If "Captain" was him, he definitely demonstrated a visible improvement lately.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, excellent point. It's obvious he's here to be a non-disruptive member of the community, which is why he's garnered three blocks for edit warring.[65] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to it. Well said. He was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of a banned editor, but that may not have happened if he had not been blocked previously, and had a clean track record. Of course, he was blocked multiple times in the past month for disruption, so the block was entirely reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one disputes the block. But a person who made this block (Alex bakharev) came here and asked if these two users can be unblocked. Hence this discussion. My reply to EVula: I have no idea why User:Deacon of Pndapetzim blocked Captain, but in two other cases that was a violation of 3RR rule on his side. On the second occasion (that was actually Battle of Tskhinvali rather than 2008 Ossetian war) he reverted repeated copyright violations by User:Top Gun who was later indefinitely banned. On the first occasion (Okinawa) he tried to remove poorly sourced accusations of war rapes by US soldiers. Yes, he is guilty of 3RR violation. But this does not justify his indefinite block.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock. From what I've seen, the positive contributions far outweigh the "incivility". We could do with a few more foul-mouthed neutralists round here to balance out the "civil POV-pusher" brigade. --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not hard to find out why Deacon blocked him; see User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog#3RR violation for the block notice. While you're at it, scroll up, and you'll see a slew of additional warnings about civility and edit warring. Gee, almost like he hasn't changed his editing patterns or something... strange, who'd have thunk? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took my time to think about this one, and I agree with EVula, LessHeard vanU, and Rlevse that the community ban of HanzoHattori is still justified. Even if we ignore the socking issue, there has simply been too much disruptive editing. — Satori Son 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to User:Grey Fox who is defending Hanzo and trying to vilify me, he himself is a sockpuppet of User:Pietervhuis who is trying to avoid scrutiny from his massive block log.--Miyokan (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't throw around sockpuppet claims without some evidence of some sort. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    M.V.E.i. should be NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be unbanned. The thought of letting this neo-fascist monster run about like crazy is intolerable. He has complete contempt for all our rules: I speak as the blocking admin. Generally speaking, I support unbanning Captain Obvious, probably under restriction of some kind. No, he's not perfect, but he has clearly improved, and on South Ossetia articles has done good and neutral work. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with Moreschi. I watched very closely all content changes made by Captain in many articles, because this is my area of interest. I found that he usually make non-controversial changes, including a better sourcing and more comprehensive coverage of a subject. However, he often deleted poorly sourced claims (e.g. in 2008 Ossetian war-related subject or Okinawa battle) which caused a very angry reaction of certain POV-pushers. Note how several socks of M.V.E.i. came to Captain's talk page page to argue with him (User:Chrystal_Blue_Moon and User:Log in, log out). Then Captain struggled to enforce WP:NPOV and sometimes was sanctioned for 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool down needed for IP

    Resolved
     – Articles semiprotected for now, no activity overnight. Temp blocks and semi-protection will be used when necessary.

    An IP-hopping anon has gotten out of hand over a dispute as to which images to use in some articles, and has been violating NPA. I tried to block the IP for a cooling off period (48 hours), but the user is hopping around (66.176.139.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.191.12.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.196.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 98.211.229.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 98.211.229.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) so far, all Cox Cable, so a range block is out of the question). I also suspect there is a connection between the anon user and this sockpuppet case, as Comayagua99 was the anon's first target. At this point I need other heads to review the blocks I've made and to step in, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prior to your posting here, I had submitted request for page protection on four articles that seem to be the focus of the same anon: South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida. No comments or action have been taken on those requests ... but I'm wondering if temporary full protection would be better than the semi-protection I had requested so that all involved can sit back and discuss. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The four related articles have now been semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: The anon is currently posting under 66.176.46.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). See:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confident that this is the indefinitely blocked User:Miamiboyzinhere. He is a Cox Cable customer and he is hopping IPs, probably every time he logs into Cox. Semi-protection of his target articles may be the only way to prevent disruption from him. -- Donald Albury 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your evaluation is correct. Perhaps semi-protecting all the relevant pages for 2 weeks, and block if the user turns up anywhere else. All your blocks on this so far are sound. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep watch on these articles, and will temp block IPs and semi-protect articles when necessary. Maybe he will get tired of his games. -- Donald Albury 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAT? I thought "cool-down blocks" were specifically against policy . — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.202.65.243

    User:71.202.65.243 is disrupting the Talk:Ecosystem page the last half an hour. Could somebody take a look, please. I have referted him multiple times now, and he doesn't respond to any of my comments on the talk page -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks to be just a dispute over layout. The IP seems to prefer to organize the page by-the-book to certain Wikipedia guidelines, which he has even cited. You prefer the layout a different way based on the flow of the article. Neither are really wrong here, but it is up to the editors on the page to reach a consensus, and not just endlessly edit war over it. Others may have a different opinion, but I don't see this as requiring administrative action at this time. I DO think that everyone should stop editing other user's comments on the talk page though. ArakunemTalk 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was just talking about the Talk:Ecosystem and the (previous) disrupting User:71.202.65.243 (was) is making there, not the changes to the Ecosystem article. But he seemes to get the message now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored all changes made to the initial discussion by user:71.202.65.243 before 21 August 2008. myself now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

    Resolved

    Not protected. Bstone (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Del Martin just died. Please protect. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Incidentally, requests for page protection are handled at WP:RPP.  Sandstein  19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when do we do preemptive protections? Corvus cornixtalk 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't. But additional eyes on the article would be appreciated. Maralia (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guideline deletion issue

    An important (though not well-worded) segment of WP:DAB that more properly belonged at WP:NCP was deleted yesderday, to resolve a dispute at WT:NCP. While I question whether deleting guideline material to satisfy one side of an ongoing dispute about whether the guideline applies to them is proper procedure, my real concern is that a better-written version that addresses the concerns of both parties is being editwarred out of WP:NCP. I've reverted that deletion twice and stopped, and even been attacked for going that far, on the flimsy basis that I have no consensus for this, when of course the missing consensus was for the original deletion. Moving the material from one page to another and fixing it up is one thing, but eliminating it entirely quite another. No one has disputed the re-wording. Rather, this seems to be a fait accompli end-run around process by a small group of sports-bio editors to get rid of a guideline segment they don't like, despite the fact that it no longer even affects what they are doing. It's quite mystifying.

    I'm not seeking any kind of action against anyone, just advice on whether to:

    1. Just leave the material out of the guidelines generally, until discussion plays out, which could take a day or 18 months, who knows
    2. Put it back into WP:DAB from which it was deleted without consensus (with or without the wording improvements that render the dispute at WT:NCP moot), and from which it is likely to be reverted back out again by the same people
    3. Seek temporary page protection in one or both locations (even if it is presently the "wrong version"), until discussion arrives at a consensus.
    4. Or what.

    I'm told that edit history at WP:DAB shows that I'm responsible for the original language of the passage to begin with, many months ago (I didn't bother to verify this). I spend so much time in MOS and related pages that I really have no recollection, and it doesn't matter. This isn't about whether my text was perfect (obviously it wasn't or I wouldn't have overhauled it to make the sports-related dispute at WT:NCP resolve itself), but rather whether a one-topic micro-consensus can change policy by removing long-accepted advice from one guideline, where it has been stable and adhered to for a long time, across almost all bio articles (4 particular sports seeming to be the only consistent exceptions) and then refusing to allow the material into the guideline it arguably really belongs in. Strikes me as a fillibuster. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anyone in the discussion knew that one person redirected the section in WP:DAB to WP:NCP until just now. What people said you added was the language that was in WP:NCP which you added about 6 months ago without discussion. No one moved the language from one page to another. They just redirected the DAB section to the NCP page. I think you may have assumed someone moved something and then got upset when none of us there knew that happened because it handn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting a long-standing and stable guideline section and redirecting it to a page that ostensibly has more detail on the topic, but is in fact missing a key component of the deleted guideline material is a deletion without consensus of guideline material. There is simply no way around that. I'm not sure what you mean by no one knew; Francis Schonken announced his redirect of the DAB section to NCP at WT:NCP rather prominently. I never said anyone moved the material, other than me, in a sense: I restored it, in a form specifically adjusted to answer your concerns about its original wording, to NCP, and you and others reverted it as an "undiscussed addition". It is not an addition, it is a restoration of an undiscussed deletion of stable guideline material (in a way that does not dispute the redirection of the section in question to the larger guideline on the topic; you can't have it both ways - either the material belongs in DAB or it belongs in NCP, but redirecting the DAB section to NCP does not void the material that was in DAB without discussion as to its faults; this is just Merge 101, here). Whether there was broad discussion of its original addition to WP:DAB is completely irrelevant. WP:BOLD is policy, and the addition was a well-accepted and generally-followed addition (because it mostly simply wrote down what was actually consensus de facto practice; the current revision of the language is even more accurate). Cf. WP:CONSENSUS: silence generally equals assent, especially in a page watchlisted by thousands. All that said, new discussion has opened on the talk page at WT:NCP and hopefully it will be more productive than argumentation about who wrote what when. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for simplicity sake, leaving the guideline pages where they are and letting the discussion play out works fine. The contested wording is not going to have any real impact on how "Wikipedia at large" and "the sports rebels" will disambiguate their articles. The status quo remains regardless of the existence of the text. If you wish to resore the balance, so to speak, by restoring what was removed from WP:DAB, I personally wouldn't have a huge issue with that, so long as there was no discussion that led to its removal. The conversation at WT:NCP can continue, and any consensus reached can later be reflected in both guidelines. Resolute 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Just wanted to make sure that a revert of the DAB deletion wasn't in order as a matter of WP:PROCESS. The deletion wasn't discussed. It was just a bold move (which is fine; WP:BRD is normal). I have faith that it will smooth out fairly quickly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

    Just when I filed the above report, the suspected socks started playing around like before (just like when I filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3). I am sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report-just like the last time. User:Ausonia is doing just that and keeps making undiscussed/controversial page moves and changes by using several sock accounts.

    ...The last time I filed a report, the socks noticed it and made more negative edits. It looks as if this guy is contributions-stalking me and that really disturbs me. I have had about enough of this and want it to end ASAP. There should be no excuse for continuing such edits for the millionth time. Isn't there someone who can help me out here? ~ Troy (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpgordon looks to have responded, at the SSP subpage; checkusers can be quite useful dealing with this sort of problem, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Hopefully this mess gets cleared up—I can't let it happen ever again. ~ Troy (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.184.97.80

    This ISP has vandalized the Matt Costa article three times with the same URL phishing (see article's history), changing the subject's homepage URL, mattcosta.com, to matthewcosta.com, which redirects to an unrelated MySpace page. I've left two notices on their talk page with no response. Emw2012 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered requesting for page protection? ~ Troy (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass violations of WP:DATE

    I recently warned JakePlummerFan (talk · contribs) for mass violations of WP:DATE, see here. The user has however ignored my warning, continuing to link dates despite the fact it is against WP:DATE and unneeded in the context of the article. Please see [66][67][68] for examples of his edits. I'm already rolled some of his edits back from earlier, but don't wish to do so again to avoid edit-warring. Assistance by an adminstrator is probably required here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a final warning, with a little explanation. If they resume, take it to WP:AIV for possible action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FinancialAnalyst

    FinancialAnalyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - check the deleted revision of the user page, and the early contributions. This is obviously a returning user, and the likely candidate seems to me to be Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but that is a guess based on Dimension31's comments in the history of the article now at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The ASCII on the user's page is innocuous, not sure about the (Chinese? Kanji?) script though. Is this a problem, or am I just seeing reds under the bed again? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Japanese says "Japanese / English", according to Google Translate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That user certainly has shown copious amounts of bad faith in the past. And Dimention31 jumped right in the fray with the SocialPicks mess (check the deleted contribs) after a long absence. Fishy. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: are you sure Dimention31 is active again? I must be missing something. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean active now, active in March after 6-odd months of inactivity (this is when the SocialPicks article was deleted). — Coren (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I really don't think this is a returning user, based on his poor username choice (a returning user would know better) that led to a block, and his complete surprise and annoyance at the deletion of the article. In any case, Dimension31 is not blocked and has been inactive for 6 months; if they are the same user, the alternate account seems legit. Mangojuicetalk 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FinancialAnalyst has accused me of just about everything but kidnapping the Lindbergh baby; but I don't think there's any evidence to back up this theory. More than one person can be a fan of the same non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK< reds under the bed it is then. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bracha L. Ettinger's persecution on Wikipedia - probably a symbolic massacre on political grounds

    Archived; please contribute to the already existing thread above.  Sandstein  09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to draw your attention to this: Bracha Ettinger had been added to a list who monitors "self-hating Jews" who are helping Palestinian. Indeed she is an activist of human rights and works against the occupation. It seems that she is monitored by some right wing extremists, and this is visible in Google, and therefore her name is taken from just any possible place on Wikipedia, so that she will not be considered influential. Ettinger is very influential. This is a scandal. This seems like a massacre, a purge, no less, of a very important artist, feminist, theorist. This is probably done as a political persecution, unless it is the work of a crazy anonymous person. Please check Ettinger on Google Books, and on Google Scholars, and help me to restore her dignity and name, and also our dignity as a group of serious contributers. This cleaning of Ettinger's name seems to me a very serious affair. Artethical (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you're asking for the admin community to do here. Can you clarify? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither - what is it you want done? you realise that administrators have special buttons to help the community with certain matters, they aren't generally enforcers as such and cannot mandate content in articles. --BLP-vio-remover (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the threads above on this page. Ty 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NewCiaraFan09's incivility

    Resolved
     – Blocked

    I submit to the community the following actions and/or edit summaries of NewCiaraFan09. As a review of the editor's talk page will show, the editor has been warned at least five different times for incivility and several other times for adding inappropriate content. The editor came to my attention today, after a period of inactivity, when they chose to move Good Girl Gone Bad to Good Girl Gone Bald. After reverting the move and leaving a warning on the talk page, the editor responded with this.

    Further evidence of activity of this manner can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    • Blocked for a week, with a warning that the next one will be indefinite. Last chance saloon, I think. Black Kite 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with Jackmantas

    Have had continued trouble with user. Blocked for the most foul of edit summaries within the last couple of weeks. Returned today to write 'screw you' on my user page. What will it take to block this user indefinitely? I've endured trolling and theats via Wikipedia Mail service (and all I could do about it was discontinue having an email address listed). Obviously I am using my IP address for this as the user monitors my every edit. Thanks for any assistance. 68.147.60.114 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reblocked for a week and will be disabling his access to Twinkle as soon as I can find where the page is to do so. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks

    I have been continuously attacked by Tenmei (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages. I had not been interacted with the user until I found out that three articles on a same subject of Korean and Japanese relationship exist Wikipedia such as Korean missions to Edo created by the uer, Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa. Except Tenmei, the other creators do not seem to be active for months. Therefore, I visited him to suggest for merging the three in due course.[69] His articles is the newest one, so I thought his article should be merged into the oldest one. The discussion started peacefully[70][71] except a little friction on the title. He started to attack my comment on User:LordAmeth's talk page[72], so I said him to be civil.[73]

    However, the user suddenly kept out of the normal track and nominated one of them for deletion in the middle of the discussion. His rationales for the deletion is Joseon tongsinsa does not meet WP:V and its title with the proper noun is not WP:English. However, the Japanese user did some research on my contributions, and stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women. Also the user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article. Almost everyone said the AFD is ill-attempted, so recommended him to withdraw the nomination[74][75] and encouraged us to keep the discussion for merge. Other editor pointed out on his usage of the perjorative "Wonkery" as well.[76]. I also implemented the article with a reliable Korean sources to prevent the deletion of contents. However, he even doubts the source and makes the AFD page with adding all irrelevant things to make WP:POINT to delete the whole content and agendas like Liancourt rocks.[77][78][79][80] As he also uses very vicious languages against me and drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD, so I gave him warning and requested him to remove his ill-faith comments and disorganized and unhelpful contents from there. He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times.[81][82] He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances.[83] The AFD is going to nowhere. The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling. I think the user really need a proper lesson on WP:Civility. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Tenmei, do not alter my report on you.[84] I'm trying to keep the report as succinct as possible as holding your notable verbal attacks. You altered my statement and posted to the AFD without my permission several times. That is a no-no, and you've been warned for your disruptive behaviors more than enough. You said I'm editing Wikipedia for anti-Japanese sentiment and doing "tag teaming". Those false accusations are ill and malicious personal attacks done by you. That's why you're summoned here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Caspian blue is attacking me

    This is is an extraordinary example of what is called "gaming the system" in wiki-talk; and it deserves to be examined with close scrutiny an and a heightened attention to what actually happened here.

    Responding to this very serious charge will take some time; but as a first blush look at this complaint, why don't you click on the hidden text which Caspian blue has created. Look at the last of the choice quotes which are presented as proofs of my intolerable behaviour. The red font text shows what was edited out, and the external link simply provides proof that what I wrote and what is posted here are significantly different. This isn't just bad form. This isn't just an accident. NO -- this is something worse; and the rest of the serial charges Caspian blue has made here can be similarly addressed and deflated seriatim. However, it does take longer to expose and quash a deliberate fraud than it took to create the misleading evidence which supports this false allegation. --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am involved in this only in that I voted in the AFD discussion. After CaspianBlue posted a request on my talk page, I have done some looking into the dispute, but not perhaps enough. Here are some preliminary ideas. First, CaspianBlue and Tenmei both seem to be non-native-English speakers, and ones from different cultures. They should both realize the difficulties of communicating and working together in a foreign language. Tenmei, especially, seems to become very upset whenever he/she perceives incivility - I think that Tenmei should be very careful to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and try to not get upset at what is, in American terms, a reasonable discussion. Tenmei should, at all costs, not abuse other editors - that accomplishes nothing. Tenmei seems to be capable of contributing usefully and working with other editors; he/she should strive to do so always. One thing Tenmei must, however, learn - discussions suffer from the addition of large text blocks. Adding long, rambling, and unnecessary blocks of text to discussions harms the discussion and irritates other editors. Tenmei must learn to discuss in a concise and on-topic fashion. Long documents should be placed in user-space or other off-topic locations and linked to if necessary; comments should be short and concise (unlike this one, but I'm trying to say a number of things). I think Tenmei should be given a chance to change his/her behavior, if they want to try, rather than being blocked. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NO to "strong bias against Korean editors"

    This a phoney claim -- contrived for purposes I can't fathom. We all come to Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. In my case, Caspian blue seems to have come looking for a fight, hoping for an argument, angling for something to complain about. I avoided participating in that game to a greater extent than I would have thought possible given the repeated provocations. The clear record which is saved by the Wikipedia system will show that Caspian blue set out to create something out of nothing. I won't get into why this happened. I don't have to do that. I don't have to explain what motivated this. However, I do intend to show that I neither initiated nor participated in anything like a "personal attack" as defined in wiki-terms. No.

    The one phrase that most deserves to be highlighted above is "strong bias against Korean editors." This could be a very serious charge, but it deserves to be rejected as completely out-of-place here.

    This is over-reaching, and in way -- sad; but to the extent that the accusation is designed to cause me harm, it needs to bring down harsh rejection in a fashion that Caspian blue cannot misunderstand. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote the following. I'll address the other specific complaints Caspian blue makes; but for now, this is a good beginning. There is no offense in this -- but there is a demonstration of the plain fact that I've had the good fortune to learn from a children's story -- The Emperor's New Clothes.

    The fact of the matter is that there are problems in some articles which involve both Korea and Japan. There is current strife between Korea and Japan. That's not a revelation of any kind of anti-Korean bias, it's just the way it is. Having written an article about a time when something went right between Korea and Japan, the question Caspian blue and others force me to confront is how to foster scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development. At the same time, the task becomes one of figuring out how to avoid the endless litany of pitfalls which fill the talk pages of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort Women, just to name two of them. What to do is a real question -- it's not "Korean bashing" unless heightened sensitivity, thin-skinned indignation and a need for something to argue about are combined to make something out of nothing for reasons I don't have to understand ....

    I see a problem which affects my ability to work effectively on the task of improving Wikipedia articles, and I did address it in a straightforward manner. As a first step, read what I wrote. The following is an invitation to work together towards worthwhile goals. It was rejected entirely and instead, Caspian blue wants to fulfill a quite different need.

    Instead of adding in-line citations and reference sources to Joseon Tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo or just any article which attracts interest, Caspian blue chooses to focus on me. Read the following and decide for yourself where I've tried to engineer my focus:

    Withdrawal from AfD
    Taemyr counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?

    - * ------ * ------ * -

    In re-visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I was inspired to examine Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. If someone else is able to stretch WP:AGF farther than I'm able to do -- if we assume that everything above is really nothing more than a big mistake, then would it be reasonable to consider "userfication" of the text posted at Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Taemyr counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.

    Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from Foreign relations of Imperial China.

    Both Joseon Tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo at present account for only a relatively short 300-year period in the history of the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.

    This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - * ------ * ------ * -

    In response to Taemyr's well-reasoned and patient counsel, I have been persuaded that it is no longer essential that Joseon tongsinsa be deleted, but that does not mean I disagree with Stifle. With Taemyr's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.

    Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of Taemyr's wiki-weltanshauung still troubles me because it necesssarily implies a deliberative cognitive dissonance, a stance which is undeniably best in this setting .... This is in no way a criticism or a complaint. I have nothing but thanks to offer Taemyr as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.

    There is no reason for Taemyr to have expanded the ambit of this AfD evaluation to include a consideration of Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[85][86][87][88] which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if Stifle was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:

    ----This is a controversial topic. Before making substantial changes, please
    ----read the talk page and make sure to edit only in a spirit of cooperation.
    ----This article is currently under special administrative surveillance and
    ----absolutely no edit-warring will be tolerated.
    ----Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked.
    ----Incivility and edit-warring will not be put up with, and all reverts must be discussed fully
    ----on the talk page before you revert. Not after! Thank you.

    Although Brianyoumans may have known about controversial Dokdo class amphibious assault ship[89][90] and about ROK naval manoevers last month [91][92], there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."

    I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting Korean missions to Edo so as to avoid, as best I could, any plausible cause for controversy. That I was unsuccessful in real world terms does not undercut the extent to which I did manage to comply explicitly with WP:V -- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:

    1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." -- NO, CAN'T BE FIXED
    2. "Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable." -- NO, NOT REPAIRABLE

    The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.

    Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. The dignified and sober Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know, but I would invite consideration of the following:

    ONE: It is frustrating that the following fell on deaf ears in this AfD venue:
    "The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort ...." --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TWO::It is frustrating that it would take hours to respond to just one paragraph Caspian blue posted at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Opposition to Merge, and in all probability the questions were merely rhetorical -- which means that any misguided attempt to respond calmly, rationally, critically will only become fodder for yet another perverse escalation of angry accusations:
    Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development

    It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).

    Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.

    An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.

    In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.

    Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.

    My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.

    No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.

    No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.

    Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I don't even read your lengthy rambling but still seem like you fill with same disdainful false accusations. Your serious false charge of me are all attached above. You abuse the AFD from the ill-faith as filling with all bashing instead of focusing the AFD. Besides, you paste the same comment from the AFD. Even User:LordAmeth said that you have a tendency to make personal attacks to editors. Heh.. he knows you way better than me. Well, this rambling seem to be your tactic to distract people's attention. I think you really deserve a proper sanction. Will see.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Good grief. I have read both of your ramblings and they are entirely long, winded, and contradictory. Can both of you sum it up in a few paragraphs, with relevant citations, so that the administrators can infer just what has gone on? Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you read my thread only (I sum up the situation), you can grasp why he should be reported to here. More shortly, Tenmei who has tendency to make personal attacks suddenly made a peaceful merging proposal to be a place for making personal attacks at the AFD. He drags irrelevant articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women which I have edited as a method of attack and distrust for my merging suggestion. He also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. I said he should be stop his making personal attacks and removed irrelevant bashing from the AFD, but he refuses and keeps continuing such behaviors. My report is not for a content dispute, but for his so impeccable behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008(UTC)
    • Comment This seems to be similar to Tenmei's highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour towards me and other editors over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article. In my experiance this editor routinely responds to disagreements with long and highly uncivil posts and escalates minor disagreements into major disputes as he not willing to enter into good-faith discussions but instead stubbonly sticks to his position and attacks editors who have different views. Tenmei has been warned many times for his uncivil and disruptive behaviour and has been asked to condense his long-winded talk page posts as these are not contributing to discussions, but this has had no observable impact. Diffs to some of Tenmei's uncivil comments involving the Hyūga class article include: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99] and [100] and the warnings Tenmei has recieved for his behaviour on that article include [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107] and [108]. As this editor is displaying a consistant pattern of misbehaviour I believe that some form of block would be appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears too obvious that Tenmei inflates a tiny thing to be a drastic WP:SOAP as resorting to personal attacks. I don't why the user has to show strong enmity toward me as pulling irrelevant matters to the AFD. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I received this demand on my talk page. That was followed with this equally long rant on a totally unrelated thread at ANI. seicer | talk | contribs 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer -- If you are not an administration to whom I should have presented a request about restoring what was reverted, to whom should I have gone. I wrote "please" which was coupled with a request to do something. If that is perceived as a demand, I don't know what to say.
    I'm in no position to demand anything from you. In fact, as far as I know, no one can demand anything from anyone else in the Wikipedia environment. I asked -- that's it. I take it your answer is "no" and that the question should not have been directed to you.
    As for your worry about that mis-posted "rant," I can move it here where it was intended to be posted.
    I would have thought that "rant" was perjorative. If so, it is undeserved. What I did do was to use the template provided at WP:CIVIL as a tool to organize my response to a charge that I have been more than incivil -- that my alleged anti-Korean bias has been exacerbated by a wrongful personal attack. That's not a rant -- certainly not in the context of this rapidly changing thread. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs you provide show no evidence of incivility. [109]: What incivility? Weird yes, but incivil no. [110]: I don't know what diff he is defending here, there might be incivility in the comment that lead to the warning but I can find none in this diff. [111] and [112]: I don't see anything that could be construed as incivility here.

    [113]: On it's own it seems merely to be Tenmei stating that he feels that Nick Dowling is choosing to ignoring reliable sources. Context might mean that this is a personal attack, but in general one must be allowed to disagree with other editors. [114]: No incivility, although a clear element of failure to AGF on Tenmei's part. [115]: Clearly not helpfull, but not a personal attack. [116]: Why do you give this diff twice? Taemyr (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait! This thread is becoming so complex, I can't sort out how to respond

    This can't be made simpler while the thread grown more complex faster than I can figure it out. My initial attempts to clarify have been reverted already. Caspian blue deleted the words which were left out from what has been posted above. This means my words are not read in context. This becomes an impossible hurdle.

    Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility
    In the illustrative list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment, insults and name-calling are near the top of that list. On the same line, there is a helpful injunction -- an inviation to "comment on the actions and not the editor." This is what I have done. In order to identify which actions deserve comment, it is inevitably necessary to identify a specific individual or group of individual editors. That, I have done; and as long as I scrupulously focus on actions and content, there is no personal abuse -- no incivility. Taking umbrage as a way of avoiding further discussion of actions and content can be a mistake, an emotional misunderstanding, a faux pas. In this case, the feigned umbrage is gaming the system. That has always been the fear which motivated the resort to AfD, and that worry is now born out as fully valid.

    Also in that illustrative list at Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility is a warning against "taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Caspian blue has been pushing for something to argue about, angling for a dispute, and posturing to use indignation or feigned offense as a cause to achieve a disagreement. This is not conduct which deserves to be rewarded; and Wikipedia is diminished to the extent that an agenda-driven campaign like this is encouraged in any way.

    In a sense, Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility anticipates both of my invitations to explain myself at WP:AN/I when the illustrative list includes "ill-considered accusations of impropriety;" but while the content dispute which was treated here as a personal dispute with Nick Dowling is be partly explained by cognitive dissonance, this fake-issue, this ersatz-problem with Caspian blue is an entirely different matter. This is a cake baked from scratch by a knowing baker with a recipe in mind.

    The easiest proof of my innocence and Caspian blue culpability is in "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead" and in "quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them."

    This was never a simple situation, and it can't be resolved by ignoring the context. At its root, Caspian blue has proffered a complaint of foul play, discrimination because of an intolerable bias against Koreans. The nature of that complaint takes this out of the ordinary run of disputes which appear on this page.

    Ultimately, Caspian blue's complaint runs afoul the last of the items on the list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment -- "feigned incomprehension" or "playing dumb." In this instance, Caspian blue's actions are revealing, rather the lack of actions. When an perceived offense was discovered or announced, where was there a realistic opportunity to address that offense with an explanation. The record will show that there was never that kind of opportunity. Rather, Caspian blue was carefully saving up a list of insults and slights and offenses so that cumulatively they could be made into something to complain about.

    In conclusion, this was a campaign, an orchestrated strategy. How can I address it without putting my own words in context? That's an essential objective ... else innuendo becomes the only coin which buys anything.

    I have to be able to put my words in context; and I can't keep up with constant reverts which happen too fast for me to follow. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenmei (talk · contribs), I used to hear a complaint that I made a long-winded report but you surpass me indeed. I don't need to waste my time to read "irrelevant ramblings". It seems that this is your tactic to get out of your charges because you know nobody read "lengthy complaint". You did the same thing to the last report on your disruptive personal attacks. You initiated to attack me out of nowhere from my peaceful proposal for merging as labeling my comment as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging". The uncivil comment was not a big deal until you nominated the article for deletion with pulling the "race card" and "anti-Japanese sentiment". It is YOU who falsely has accused me that I'm editing by tag-teaming with others and do not deserve to edit the nominated article because I've been editing Comfort women and Liancourt Rocks. (how irrelevant to the article) You are digging my contributions to make the whole content to be deleted, and deliberately chose vicious languages like "skewed out" and you denounced all my contribution history. More than half of the AFD is filled with your bashing about me. You still have a chance to give me your sincere apologies and to retract personal attacks. Oh well, after you got a warning from an admin, but you keep continued your behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting out-of-context in order to malign

    Caspian blue has listed nine examples of "Tenmei's verbal attacks." I can and will respond to all of them; and it will become plain that there never was any personal attack nor was there anything other than an attempt to grapple with a difficult question having difficult consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • FIRST QUOTE: This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo.
    The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[117].][reply]
    RESPONSE:
    A. There are articles which are highly controversial. There are people who exacerbate controversy. Some do so intentionally and others do so unintentionally. Without commenting on motivation or intention, the fact remains that there are some whose contributions inflame or worsen an already difficult situation. This happens in life, and it is irrational to conceive of a wiki-reality in which editors do not have the same effect.
    B. Regardless of whether Caspian blue was amongst those who make exacerbate or ameliorate any specific emotionally-charged talk page exchange, the fact remains that experience in an environment of heightened strife establishes a tone, a comfort-level, a context which is defined as "normal" based on specific experiences. We all learn from experience, and it is entirely reasonable -- not a criticism -- that prolonged experience at Talk:Comfort women is likely to have produced a conception of what is normal in that context.
    C. It is not necessary or vital or productive for that sense of heightened strife from Comfort women (Ilbongun wianbu) or Liancourt Rocks to be replicated in Korean missions to Edo.
    D. When I developed a sense that this was escalating too fast into acrimony -- without any apparent causal factor in the context of Talk:Korean missions to Edo, I worried that there may be an external cause; and I tried to figure out how to calm the context for further discourse. The tool of choice for me is WP:V -- focus on the sources, the specific citations, the published facts. Nevertheless, the level of emotionally-charged, accusatory tone continued to worsen.
    E. One working hypothesis was that this was a misplaced extension of the on-going contemporary series of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese -- nothing to do with Joseon tongsinsa, but everything to do with the present day ... and Wikipedia is naught but another handy battlefield.
    F. In the process of testing a hypothesis, it always happens that you look for evidence which seems to support the proposition; and you look for evidence which might lead to another, better formulation of the same hypothesis or another hypothesis altogether.
    QUESTION:
    Could I have explained all this more succinctly. Should I have expressed these thoughts sooner? If this had been spelled out so clearly, would this clarification have further excited an already inflammatory situation?
    CLARIFYING ACTION:
    What I did do is this -- I added the following right after the sentence to which Caspian blue objected, hoping to explain in this neutral way rather than making anything worse.[118]
    {:{medcabbox|2008-07-25_Comfort_women}} -- This article, Comfort women, is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
    {:{calm talk}} -- Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
    {:{Controversial-issues}} -- This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.

    Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


    • NINTH QUOTE: Caspian blue -- Nope. Not having the affect you seek.
    FACT: You are offensive -- stop it. You've been offensive for some time; and I've been trying to figure out how to contrive an alchemy which will allow me to focus on the scholarly issues which interest me. It's taken a while to sort through my thoughts, but ignoring you isn't exaclty the answer. NO -- you and your ilk require a quite different strategy. Do us all a favor -- just stop.
    FACT: You perversely aim to construe anything and everything as a new cause for argument -- stop it.
    FACT: Your claimed distress is a mere sham. My advice to you -- Find someone else to trouble.
    FACT: This arguing gambit is a kind of fraud, and it really can't withstand close scrutiny. Instead of bothering me, why don't you focus attention on something constructive, anything.
    On the other hand, if you're determined to try to make a fuss, you'll have to be more specific. I've done nothing, written nothing, contributed nothing for which I have any regrets except that it took so long for me to figure out a tentative strategy for handling the problems you present. You've managed to feed your appetite for argument in other settings, but maybe all I need to do is to demand you abandon innuendo and instead that you make your complaints specific. Then it's my challenge to figure out how to divert a rambling rant into anything to do with credible source.
    That's my plan -- not much really. Kinda simple. Alchemy turning dross to gold.
    Speaking of gold -- what about that Korean baseball team? Olympic gold. There is only one explanation for that victory -- hard work, practice and teamwork. A good lesson worth learning in any number of contexts. --Tenmei (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[119].]
    RESPONSE:
    From first to last, I have always tried to do what is expressly explained here -- to divert non-constructive complaints into anything to do with a credible source. The result of trying to work through this seemingly intractable problem did result in something succinct. The mere fact that these few important words in red font were excluded proves one thing -- they were not perceived as offensive. It is not proof, but it is suggestive that these words were excluded. It suggests that Caspian blue understood well enough that these words were conciliatory and that if they were read in this context, others might be persuaded that my focus was on collaboration, cooperation, consensus and enhancing the quality of the subject which was the focus -- not personal attack, and not anti-Korean discriminatory bias.
    QUESTION:
    Could I have explained all this better, sooner, clearer? If I had amplified this crisp statement, would the clarification have further excited an already inflamed situation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by tenmei (talk • contribs)

    Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks

    Caspian Blue, you have been blocked once in part for attempting to use NPA to solve your content disputes[120], and two more times for edit warring with a pro Korea POV[121]. For this reason it is especially important that you are careful to assume good faith in fellow editors, especially on disputes about Korea related articles. I am personally amazed that you are able to be so certain about what Linmei is trying to say, most admins that have commented in this thread finds getting any real meaning out of Tenmei's comments to be very difficult. Stricken reference is fallout from a run in with a sock farm, it is less indicative of a trend on the part of Caspian than what the block log suggest. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite obvious that you come to condone Tenmei's disruptions as accusing the above admin making "false accusations" to Tenmei. I strongly advise you retract your personal attacks against me and the links. My blocks are deeply involved with "sock/meat farms by pro Japanese and they were indef.blocked for their disruptions. The log has nothing to do with the tread. You have witnessed the AFD was going nowhere with personal attacks. I had assumed good faith, and used up all for his repeated personal attacks. Well if you can't not retract the attack, I will ask admins. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not condone Tenmei's statements, there is definitivily an element of incivility there, but I consider your responce to them an overeaction. The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant, and I see no evidence that Amagase is part of any sock farm. Taemyr (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Overraction? Taemyr, retract your personal attacks and bad faith comment. You mentioned my other blocks, which are related to sockpuppetry's disrutpions. You mock me here to defend Tenmei. I say again, remove your increadiblity uncivil and inappropriate comment. You are no position to mock me in the public place.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one making the situation getting worst and worst. I said you have to remove your mention of my block log, not partially striking out on your comment and adding another ad hominem attacks in a disguised analysis. You made more attacks not retracting your insults. You know how well your statement anger people. Good faith is not always effective to people like you. You also attacked Nick Dowling, and target at me. Your inappropriate behaviors should be examined.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenmei, at the very least statements such as "you and your ilk" is a personal attack. As is the statement "You are offensive". In the latter example note that there is a difference between "You are offensive" and "Your actions are offending me" or "This action offends me". Also, try to keep the discussion you are involved in to the point, you tend to run on a lot, this makes it very hard to get at what you are trying to say. As a consequence people are bound to misunderstand you, and at times this will escalate conflicts you are involved in. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Folks, much as the above makes the eyes glaze over and inclines one to bypass as TL;DR, I think that Tenmei has proved Caspian Blue's point for him rather well. Question: what, if anything, should be done? Tenmei is clearly exceptionally vexatious, but it's not all one-sided. I'd like to suggest that both disputants accept a 48 hour injunction to disengage, resist the temptation to post further diatribes here, leave all mutually disputed articles alone and allow some space for a measured consideration of the issue - otherwise I'm afraid it's likely to end up with people simply losing patience with the whole festival of Stupid. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracting 'you and your ilk
    Before filing this WP:AN/I, Caspian blue asked User:LordAmeth if I were Japanese. In my view, whatever is going on with Caspian blue has little to do with me. As for what was happening, I don't want to be involved in that difficult speculation.
    I did try not to make this worse. Who will not credit me with trying to think through this as best I could? In my view, my efforts to avoid making a bad problem worse should purchase the counseling which will help me figure out how I could have done better ... and that is exactly what I thought was happening at AfD until Caspian blue abandoned a venue in which I thought the participants were helping us re-invent the wheel.
    Guy -- Mercutio's curse is not appropriate here -- "A pox on both your houses." Japanese and Korean conflicts may be like the Montagues and Capulets, but I've been trying to figure out how to avoid conflicts, not only with Caspian blue others similarly motivated.
    Taemyr -- You identify some of my faux pas above; but this has has nothing to do with Caspian blue in the sense that I am not now, nor have I been angered by this. I've just been frustrated at my inability to participate in a way that makes for a more constructive environment. If "you and your ilk" is an prohibited personal attack, I can withdraw those words immediately. I'm doing my best to be constructive and appropriate. No other interpretation of my edits is accurately reflects my intention. If there are other unacceptable remarks, I can and will remove them in a second. I can even apologize for wrong words, BUT I don't apologize for trying and failing in circumstances which were difficult to fathom.
    To whom could I have turned for counsel except to Taemyr? Whatever else you can say about what I was doing, there was a mind at work trying to figure out how to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You pulled all anti-Japanese sentiment and race card first because you know I'm Korean, and over analysied my contributiosn and attacked me. Therefore, I have to know why your malicious false accusations come from. According to other editors' saying, you're not a native speaker but uses very odd English. Well, You have to apologize your personal attack. The AFD is clearly your failed attempt filled with the irrelevant matters and your rant.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenmei, I urge you to seek a Mentor. The fact that most editors find your style of discussion to be difficult to understand, as well as tending to sidetrack the discussion, is going to be a problem for you and editors around you until you substantially improve your prose. Taemyr (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian blue -- I can and do sincerely apologize for using the term "you and your ilk." Those words are not permitted in this venue, and I am happy to comply with the norms established here. But there is nothing else for which I have any regret except that the consequences were not constructive, nor were they perceived as attempting to conform my behavior in a focus on making Wikipedia better.
    If I could be made to understand that other parts of what I've written are deserving of an apology, I will have no problem expressing regret.
    Caspian blue -- Do you remember this? You somehow construed this apology as a new cause to get angry:
    Please do not feel rushed. Feel free to proceed at a pace which seems comfortable to you. My opposition to the merge can change and will change when in-line citations and bibliographic references are added.
    You may want to look at what I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse. It is possible that this may produce helpful results; and I hope we both find reasons to appreciate the additional help this gesture brings. Maybe we will discover that this gambit was the most constructive step either you or I could have taken.
    Please note that it is not possible to engage the attention of this Article Rescue Squadron without listing Joseon tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. Also, please note that I did not list Joseon Tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. --Tenmei 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[122][reply]
    Caspian blue You told me I was too sensitive and that my words were offensive and uncivil. I apologized -- and yet this was a new cause to get angry.
    I am pleased to notice that you consider me too sensitive. That significant difficulty is easily resolved. I will strive to be more flexible.
    You mention that you construed my words as "offensive and uncivil." That too is easily resolved. I can and do sincerely apologize for having caused offense -- noting easier or more welcome than to confess regret for having erred when nothing but finesse and diplomatic, cautious langauge was intended. --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[123][reply]
    You stroke the comment and then suddenly began to pour all racial cards and analysis at me.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what to do going forward, but apologies aren't helpful -- even when sincere. I will only apologize to the extent that someone like Taemyr counsels me to do. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, Taemyr defended you as making insults by him. Good behavior.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blunt talk=

    Part of my problem is that wiki-norms require me to beat around the bush. Also, Caspian blue construed everything and anything as a new cause for anger -- even an apology caused trouble I don't understand. But what else was I to do except to try to make sense in the only venue where, thanks to Rescue Squadron, there was even half a chance of getting real help?--Tenmei (talk)

    Can someone give me permission to speak freely for once? --Tenmei (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calvinliang

    Resolved
     – — Satori Son

    Would someone please look at the move logs of Calvinliang (talk · contribs). They appear to be doing a lot of page move testing/vandalism. The actions of this user has now messed up the page history of the article Chinese Singaporean. The history of the page appears to be at Chinese Singaporean people. Cunard (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by Sandahl, and I fixed the page move stuff. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing it! Cunard (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP efforts to undermine process on changes needed in Anthony Burgess article

    On July 17, I removed a large number of laundry lists of "facts" about the author, including irrelevancies like he was flatulent, had back cysts and the chicken pox, and included a stark listing of places Burgess lived in his life, the names of some pets and his favorite foods, here. to this article, based on the article being largely unsourced and full of laundry lists of "facts" about the author. After doing so, I left this note, explaining why I did so. When I approached the article, it was in excess of 89KB and contained exactly three inline citations for all of this. A query was posted on the talk page, to which I responded, further clarifying my issues with the article, here. I did a bit more work on July 20, and added citations needed tags, here. The next day, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted part of it here, calling it vandalism. The rest was reverted immediately after here, stating vital to an understanding of Burgess to know the many different countries and places where he lived and worked, despite that the article already contains most of the residence information in the main body. I left a note on the talk page for this IP here, explaining the issues with the material, and included an admonition about calling good faith editng "vandalism." I reverted here, stating removal of this was NOT vandalism; it is unsourced trivia with no context or relevance. I was quite clear in all of these talk page notes as to what in specific is at issue and why it is.

    The next day, User:Pleather reverted again, stating Sorry, those cuts were far too extensive. Much of this IS sourced, from his novels and memoirs. Could be improved, but certainly doesn't deserve deletion. He then added three fact tags to the article. I again addressed this on the article talk page, here. User:Pleather responded on the talk page, asking for time to work on the article, but also implying that I was not in the position to make a call regarding the material because I wasn't familiar enough with Burgess' work, and declaring that the material is vital to understanding it. How that was vital wasn't explained. I replied here, agreeing to allow time and further discussed the specific problems in the article as it pertains to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. My comment is that the everyday person who reads that article will no better understand why farts, chicken pox, back cysts and the pets are vital to his work than I do. It isn't a requirement to have preknowledge of the subject of the article, it is incumbent upon the authors to make it understandable and readable. Otherwise, it is just so much fancruft. Two days later, User:Pleather made this edit. It changed the "Habits" section heading and added a three sentence introduction to the section, stating changing section heading, adding intro. Starting to make this real bio material, not just gossip and trivia.

    No other changes were made to the article, thus on August 13, I made this entry on the article talk page, noting that nothing else had been done on the page in nearly three weeks. In the interim, User:Pleather was active on Wikipedia, making over 50 edits between those times. Meanwhile, only one non-bot content edit was in total on the article. When a new account made a few minor (and grammatically incorrect) changes, IP 77.99.78.38 corrected them. I waited another week with no movement of any kind on the article. On August 24, I went back in and began removing some of the trivial facts, leaving edit summaries for each systematic change. Edit summaries included notes unreferenced; relevance and context not established, bare listing unencyclopedic, not a fan page, and also questioning again things like favorite foods, chicken pox, back cysts, and questioning the context for this material. I also made efforts to preserve some of the more descriptive content and changed it from lists to prose. This is the diff spanning those changes. In the interim, someone else added a few inline citations for fact tags that were placed. On August 26, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted this work, stating These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work. This material IS sourced, as a glance at the indexes of the two biographies will confirm. I'm not sure how referring one to the indexes of a published book constitutes proper sourcing according to WP:CITE, nor does the IP make that clear. Nothing was addressed on the talk page of the article. I made a rather detailed entry on the talk page delineating my issues with the IP's reversion, also commenting on the patronizing tone in the edit summaries. Then I reverted this change here stating not to revert it and referred anyone reading it to the talk page for discussion. At that time, I requested an outside opinion by an editor whose work I trust. That editor's comment was entered here.

    This morning, another IP, 145.246.240.14, reverted the article, stating This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism. See comments by Pleather and others. Concurrently, persondata placed on the page in the meanwhile was removed. Again, the work was referred to as vandalism in the edit summary with no forthcoming discussion entered on the talk page. I made this entry on the talk page, this time more strenuously detailing some of the article issues and reverted the change here, clearly telling whoever to take it to the talk page. I then noted on the talk page that I had put in a request at WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Columbia University, both interested projects, for comments on the issue I am trying to clear up, and stating "Please stop edit warring anonymously regarding this article and allow input from other editors." Soon after, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted again, calling it vandalism. This is the third time this work has been called vandalism. No talk page discussion has been forthcoming by any of the opposing parties since the end of July. No productive work has been done on the article by these parties since the changes by User:Pleather at the end of July. The actions by these IPs are becoming tenditious. They refuse to leave the article with improvements or give the requests for input from the projects time to be made. Some help with this would really be appreciated at this point. This article, as it was, is an issue that needs to be addressed. It can't when any changes made to it are reverted and called vandalism. I apologize for the length of this, but it covers the problem thoroughly. This must stop and the contentiousness of the actions by the IPs need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like an WP:RFC is the way to go. Corvus cornixtalk 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DCFan101 user page bonanza

    This list of user pages looks a bit beyond the pale to me. The complete Disney Channel schedule and complete list of Disney bootleg download links seem especially beyond reason.Kww (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Main UserPage seriously needs to be deleted, as he gives away WAY too much private information. Further, he's got multiple pages of links to off site downloads. His barnstars are all 'You found a hidden page' nonsense. I'd deep six it all under the ' Wikipedia isn't MySpace'. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of bootleg links is particularly troubling and a fairly clear misuse of Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and deleted two pages of "download links" under WP:ADVERT. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I'm reviewing all the pages, and will be deleting any that are blatantly inappropriate; any I find questionable will be put up at MfD. Some of these pages look like they may be intended for article work, and so I won't be nuking all of them. Looks like Todd just got the important ones, but some of these still need to go, methinks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two mass MfD's posted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#August 28, 2008. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all well and good, but what about his mainpage? Gives way too much private data, per WP:CHILD. ThuranX (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Vandal

    Resolved
     – Referred to correct noticeboard. — Satori Son

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I suggest IP blocking of IP 71.252.102.174. This user edited various sexual and anatomical entries with subtle non-professional and nonsensical terminology, obviously for personal amusement. As this appeared to be repeated occurrence, with seemingly no other useful or constructive edits made, I request that this user be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.229 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV is a better place to report this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Badagnani

    Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

    complaint lodged by Ohconfucius (talk)

    There has been considerable discussion and general agreement on the direction to be taken on Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics by the community editors. All except for one User:Badagnani, who has been harping, sniping about clean-up of the article through judicious pruning, persistently calling it "blanking". Discussions come and go, and he rarely participates, and when he does, it is usually to complain that I have "blanked" this and that. He has repeatedly "requested" that I not "blank" and his count is running at 19 as at the lodging of this complaint.

    Other editors have discussed the validity of his complaints, and have unanimously backed my actions as being in line with consensus, and at least one has condemned his actions as harassment:

    An administrator, User:Stifle, asked to protect the article, ruled that most of my edits were "constructive":

    A near-exhaustive history of our exchanges and his harassment are as follows: Our direct exchanges (Usertalk pages) in sequential order:

    • 21 August 2008 Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics - explanation about Coatrack sections.
    • his reply, "I've had long experience with editors who blank massively without first seeking and obtaining consensus, as is our procedure at WP. From today's edits, you appear to be one of those. If and when you pledge to me you will abide by this thoughtful, considered manner of editing, you may post to my discussion page further"
    • 22 August 2008 I refuse to make the pledges he wants, saying "I [am not] obliged to pledge anything to you. I would remind you that consensus is not the only driving principle here on WP, WP:NPOV is a pillar, which the article appears to be violating through undue weight."

    all those below, posted to his talk page, have been removed:

    • 25 August 2008 Your protest is noted - Explanation of content move to more relevant locations.
    • 26 August 2008 Yet more massive blankings - on someone else's 'blanking'
    • 26 August 2008 Attention that I consider his actions 'harassment', draw attention to behavioural policies and guidelines
    • 26 August 2008 telling him his juvenile behaviour is verging on the harassment.
    • 27 August 2008 telling him to stop what I consider to be his personal attacks, urging him to seek anger management.
    • 28 August 2008 pre-emptive warning not to engage in edit-warring, removed seconds later.

    Article talk page exchanges: 21 August 2008

    22 August 2008

    24 August 2008


    26 August 2008

    27 August 2008

    28 August 2008

    I would also mention that this user's record speaks for itself. He has been blocked several times for disruptive behaviour and for edit-warring. He has had run-ins with a large number of editors which is evident by simply looking at his talk page. I think WP can do without contributors of this type, despite his high level of apparent contribution: edit count and large number of article creations. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am ambivalent about the incidents. Based on overall contributions, I believe that I prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists. This is more of a fervent content dispute that has spiraled out of control, rather than a blatant personal attack. I earnestly recommend mentorship, as opposed to temporary or permanent removal.   — C M B J   06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had my own frustrating run-in with Badagnani on another article, but on the balance, I too prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists and continues to contribute. I also note that until recently, Badagnani has done more complaining on the talk page than edit-warring in the article, in this instance, although the edit warring appears to have begun to escalate. I'm not sure mentorship is the answer, however.
    Regarding Badagnani's revert on 8/28, I saw nothing wrong with it. The fact that I earlier agreed that non-notable names don't need to be mentioned doesn't mean they mustn't be mentioned if removing a name disturbs the reading flow. I think Ohconfucius has become overly sensitive of Badagnani's edits, and is now targeting them as a focus of complaint, just as Badagnani has been targeting Ohconfucius' edits.
    Personally, I think a topic ban is in order. =Axlq 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am with Ohconfucius on this. Badagnani has been unreasonable, even now. If you try to discuss things with him he ignores you. I am not saying I want him banned, but would like for him to see reason. And for him to stop acting like he owns everything. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Naadapriya refuses to comply with WP:NPOV

    User:Naadapriya is a single-purpose civil POV pusher in his attempts to glorify Karnataka as the the be-all and end-all of the article, Carnatic music. He keeps insisting on placing WP:UNDUE weight on certain parts of content in the Carnatic music article, and resorts to synthesis and unreliable sources to support his position whenever he is in a dispute in this article. Several users have expressed concern over various proposals he's made, but notably between April and June (See Talk:Carnatic_music#NPOV onwards). I've reverted his edits but I think he has no intention of contributing constructively - rather, he'll continually revert war, as his contribution history shows.

    If he does continue, I ask that either he be blocked or the article protected again under the version where there are no concerns over undue weight - [124]. There needs to be discussion, and at present, that's not what he's offering - all he's doing is repeating [125] [126] the tendentious argument of 'stalling' and there being 'no valid concerns', 'all languages are great', 'there was consent by many editors' (despite that section of concerns). This is unhelpful for the matter at hand of NPOV and unreliable sources. Note also that shortly before that second diff, the article was protected for several months. The fact that this same argument is being used after the article has been unprotected does not inspire confidence. I expect to be away for a couple of days or so and I don't want this pattern of protect and unprotect to continue.

    In other words, I request a few admins keep the article on their watchlist over the next few weeks. I'd be more than willing to respond to questions or concerns on the matter if it continues to escalate. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also note I haven't informed him of this complaint, so I'd be grateful to whomever does inform him. Thank you again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know why you didn't notify him yourself. Maybe I'll find out myself soon enough. ;-) I've done it for you now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Ohconfucius: The section Ugabhoga that Ncmvocalist has repeatedly deleted (without discussions) through reverts was well discussed a while ago by many editors and it was added with valid RS. It is NPOV. I have answered all concerns of Ncmvocalist in discussion page. I do not understand why he has brought the issue here. Hope he is not expecting wikipedia tool to 'babysit' his POV's while he is gone away. Please reject unwarranted complaint that will waste the valuable time of AdmnsNaadapriya (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And he continues again with the revert warring without discussion. That section is removed due to NPOV concerns, and persistently readding it is unhelpful. Other forms such as Thillana and Githam only have a mention for the same reason - they're not elaborated as a significant form sung in all Carnatic performances, or as something that is taught as a matter of utmost importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barefeet

    I've been embroiled in some kind of sockpuppet frenzy. What are the quickest ways to exonerate myself? I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but it's turned into something of a nuisance when I come to make edits of my own. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this note from Maunus here already suggests "the best way you can exonerate yourself is by maintaining an impeccable conduct..." Since you were cleared at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco, I'm not really sure what else you are looking for. I agree the best course of action is the very one recommended by Maunus: "Don't worry about it" and continue making quality contributions. — Satori Son 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the best I can expect, it'll have to do. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New Betacommand category sorting screwup

    Betacommand (talk · contribs) seems to be using some (semi)automated tool to add reference sections to articles, and do some "cleanup" which involves changing category sorting. The adding of reference sections is an improvement, since these articles previously had references in the wikimarkup that were not actually displayed when the articles were viewed.

    However, his edits are once again screwing up category sorting. In articles such as Transport in Finland, that article is the main article for the category Category:Transport in Finland and should therefore be the first article displayed in the category. This is done by setting the sort key to a space, i.e. writing [[Category:Transport in Finland| ]]. Betacommand's tool seems to be removing all such sort keys, leading to the main article being sorted in-between all other articles in the category. Looking through only the first page of his contributions, I find 11 diffs where this error was done: [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]

    A few of these edits have been reverted by User:Fram, and I am starting to fix the rest of these that I can identify - but all of Betacommand's latest "cleanup & ref section" need to be checked for this error. There are some other edits I am not sure about - such as removing wikilinks to years - but I will not revert those since I am not all that familiar with the Manual of Style, so those could be correct.

    I am also a bit disconcerted that Betacommand is once again running such tasks without discussing them first, only days after the community has expressed doubts about his use of such tools in a discussion that unfortunately seems to have stalled. Also, this seems to be a verbatim repeat of the previous "DEFAULTSORT" erroneous edits, although at a somewhat slower pace. Once again, Betacommand's edits have caused disruption to the mainspace, and efforts must now be undertaken to correct his errors. Is he back? (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is still in force, shouldn't we just call these edits so poorly checked that they are probably automatic (I am sure they are) and block him for another week? Kusma (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I have added my comments to Betacommands talk page. Generally speaking, adding reference sections is the only good part of his latest edits. The rest, labeled "cleanup", contains some good edits, some bad (like the categorization errors), and many which are completely unneeded (changing one optional layout for another), which goes against the WP:MOS#Consistency and shouldn't be called cleanup and shouldn't be done at all (his preference does not takes precedence over the current state of an article if both options are allowable according to the pertinent guidelines). It's very tedious going through all his contribs. I have not reverted his unneeded personal preference edits unless they also contained errors (categorization, unlinking years but leaving the dates and months linked, ...) Fram (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I have found even more of these errors. See [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] Is he back? (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits are clearly automated. I have therefore blocked Betacommand for 24 hours for making automated (or seemingly automated) edits in violation of the community editing restrictions logged at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies.  Sandstein  09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there is a long recent block discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, however it has been quiet there for two days. I havent seen any "conclusion" notification on BC's user talk, so I am not sure what the current communal outcome is. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It stalled. I have opened up a new subsection, where I am pleading for an agreement in how we are supposed to deal with BC's desire to use scripts in his editing - and his too frequent habit of having them fall over. There were previously some good suggestions, and I would hope that some other, different editors could look over the content (please ignore the sometimes fractious tone) and either get behind the best ones or suggest new ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The block has occurred almost six hours after the last edit. I think it is safe to assume he is asleep. I'm not sure why his code would be changing the category in that way. Surely he should know about this, or he has been informed that his tool shouldnt remove the "| "? Im guess so, but it would be nice to have a few diffs to indicate he is fully aware that the "| " shouldnt be removed. Whether or not he was watching these edits or not, the block seems reasonable as proper care was not taken.
    Edits like this, where he changes "football team England]]international footballer" to "football team|Englandinternational]] footballer" are not perfect (it would have been nice if he fixed it along the way), but he has not left the article in a worse state than he found it (for that specific aspect of it).
    John Vandenberg (chat) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the wish is to stop Beta using scripts, isn't the solution to purge his monobook and related files (see them here? Neıl ☄ 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that a new community sanction was being worked on, and not everyone was in agreement that all scripts should be removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't try to white wash it. The problem is he threatened retaliation against any admin that blanked his monobook. Let me also make some points crystal clear. Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated. such blatant abuse and disregard for me will end in bad results for whom ever decides to be that disrespectful to me Maybe we should give him a barnstar for this latest effort?--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How is blocking someone who hasn't edited for seven hours preventing disruption, or in anyway inline with the blocking policy? If he had been blocked while running the script then that is understandable, but numerous hours after the fact? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What would you have us do? How do you propose we get him to stop running faulty scripts? Haukur (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS GUY IS A MENACE. How many ANI complaints does it take for somebody to listen? The only reason why people tolerate him because he seems to have some intent on improving whatever he thinks it is but rarely does so correctly. If it was anybody else he would have been blocked indefinately for his continuous screw ups which cause major disturbances. It doesn't matter whether he makes these edits days apart, he is still wreaking havoc and should undeniably be stopped from doing so unless he can do things correctly. He nevers follows the correct procedure and never shows any regard to the concerns of others The Bald One White cat 11:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be civil. He didnt hurt you, and you havent done any of the cleanup at this time, so there is no need for you to act as if you were personally assaulted. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with John here.  Sandstein  12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blofeld might be referring to the line in the article about Hanlon's razor which states that someone who is both industrious and stupid is a menace and must be removed. That might be overstating things... but when someone continually does something stupid that he's been asked many times not to do, it's fair game for such criticism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this was a bug in an old version of AWB. We've seen in the past that he uses custom AWB builds. --NE2 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Block endorsed by numerous users. No consensus to unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content

    Betacommand (talk · contribs) has posted the following request on his user talk page: "Please unblock as you have clearly violated WP:BLOCK, I dont have time at the moment for a long discussion. but these tools where not automated. also please actually read the discussion as it did not contain anything about semi auto work. βcommand 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)". I disagree. His recent edits, whether or not they were in fact automated, certainly appeared to be automated by their volume and uniformity, and are therefore subject to the community sanction cited above. I don't see a distinction between "semi-automated" and "automated" edits being made in that sanction. Either are automated and thus prohibited because of Betacommand's apparent propensity to screw them up. However, I welcome a review of my block.  Sandstein  11:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he would find a more sympathetic audience if these had been good edits. They clearly weren't - and he hasn't even indicated that he will address the issues. Haukur (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats exactly what I find concerning is the lack of willingness to admit his errors and discuss problems with concerned editors as I;ve just said to him The Bald One White cat 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then ask him to address the issue. From what I have seen of BC's history, instead of asking him not to make bulk edits that cause problems, every time he makes a mistake ANI threads ensue, calls for blocking are rampant and the Beta-supporters/opposers have a slanging match that should have Template:Round In Circles on it by default. The result is that even when Beta tried to discuss the issues, he's normally walking in on a discussion that has gone on for hours without him and the community has already made up their own minds about how we will edit his monobook and block his bots. He shouldn't have made a load of edits like that when there was already a discussion ongoing (especially since they were mistakes) but if blocking him hasn't worked in the past (hence this discussion) then why will it work now? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 11:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is he has been told to address issues and to make sure his edits are actually constructive. Although discussions about this issue tend to be pretty nasty, it's not through lack of attempts to resolve it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at how this specific incident was handled; Beta made (semi)automated edits, they caused damage, an ANI thread spawned and Beta was blocked - without even being given the chance the defend himself. And then we are all surprised when he responded to the action so negatively. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one controls him. Stop excusing his behaviour. He chose how to respond to this. NO ONE HELD A GUN TO HIS HEAD. He's had the chance to defend himself. In the latest community discussion he threated war over any admins applying sanctions he didn't personally approve.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. As someone who was in fact sympathetic as Haukur has pointed out, I agree with the block. He should have waited until the community was finished discussing this. He needs to take the time to be thorough before clicking the accept button on any tool (whether that be a semi-auto tool or not is besides the point, multiple mistakes being made are the real issue here). Synergy 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, to be more specific, there were also concerns raised about any large amounts of edits that appear to be automated and not just rapid edits that are automated. At this point I feel it makes no difference to stipulate how he made the edits. Hes just not getting the message here that these fast paced changes are the subject of debate; are reviewed by multiple editors; are (almost) always being fixed directly after, and are unacceptable by the community. Synergy 12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per above. ViridaeTalk 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse as I have said above, and also on BC's talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - D.M.N. (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - As a self-proclaimed Beta-apologist, this is too much for even me to take. Considering discussion on whether or not he should be restricted from using semi-automated tools is still being discussed, it seems highly unnecessary that he use them at this time. In that he has made further mass errors with such a tool during said discussion, it seems highly unlikely that a consensus for him to keep this privilege will be reached. Quite to the contrary, I believe this will be the turning point for many of Beta's apologists. Jennavecia (Talk) 12:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (although the block was a bit short), if these edits were not automated, then Betacommand clearly doesn't pay enough attention to be editing at all, especially after having been asked many times. Kusma (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Betacommand knows the score. He is not to operate automated tools. Yet he continually seeks to push what he does to the very edge of the boundary between manual and automated editing. Given his threats against any admin who dares to edit his monobook (what reason can there be for retaining automated tools in there that he isn't allowed to use), it is clear that he has no intention of complying willingly with the restrictions, but intends to waste yet more of other peoples' time arguing about whether this action or that action is allowed. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse and recommend extension of block. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Even if he were not a problematic editor, he would still be blocked for a time until he acknowledged the error and pledged to do something about it in the future. As he's made this same mistake (removing " " or "*" as a category sort key) in automated edits before, and been warned (or blocked) for it, I think one week is the minimum block that should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Beta has plenty of history to warrant the block (or so consensus seems to indicate) but are you seriously asserting that if it was an editor without a community-imposed sanction against automated edits making those mistakes they would have been blocked? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, of course. Betacommand has endured a lot of crap from the community and has done a truckload of good; as a result he has been given a lot of grace. If a newer person repeated the same types of problematic editing straight of the back of a block, after having been told a few times what is wrong with the edits, it is highly likely they would be looking at sanctions like Betacommand is, or they would be facing increasing length blocks for repeatedly wasting our time. I've hoped that he could work with the community to de-escalate the bitterness, but that isnt going to happen when he does edits like these while we are having a hard thinking about the types of tools he should have in his toolbox. As a result, I think he needs a fresh start; he needs to feel like he has to obtain the trust of his peers, just like a new user. I'd prefer he does his as his current nick as most of us will quickly forgive if we see due care being taken. He has many talents, many friends, and understands Wikipedia and the mediawiki software very well. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were someone (like Beta) who had been warned and blocked for similar behaviour numerous times, then sure, but the point I was getting at was "Even if he were not a problematic editor" — I read that as saying that if an editor with no previous blocks or warnings used an assisted-editing tool to make a number edits, then left (sleep, work etc.) and a few hours later someone found they were messing up category sort parameters, they would be blocked — which to me seems punitive, rather than preventative and since when were people blocked for making mistakes? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a first time serious tool (mis)user would probably be blocked, or had that tool taken away, although possibly a level 3 warning might be more appropriate. As this is apparently a private tool, we couldn't take the tool away without taking his computer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that in Betacommand's case, the majority of his edits are made in batches. Even if he's gone to sleep/work/eat, you can be reasonably certain that when he returns he'll resume using his faulty tool. So in that sense, the block is preventative. And even though Fram left messages for Betacommand while he was apparently away, I personally wouldn't trust Betacommand to stop and take the time to address the situation before resuming his edits. After all, his unblock request stated "I dont have time at the moment for a long discussion." The emphasis clearly is on being able to edit, not explaining what happened with his tool. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Meh. I have been one of Beta's supporters in the past, especially on fair use, but since I have blocked people in the past for creating work for others after being warned repeatedly, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't endorse this. Beta, check what you're doing *before* you do it! Black Kite 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Looks kosher by both my blocking criteria and Beta's ad hoc committee proposal. MBisanz talk 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Beta was unblocked prematurely last time, and this is the result. He must not be this time. Jonathunder (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, and I continue to advocate purging Beta's .js files to prevent any reoccurance. Neıl ☄ 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I find it ironic that BC upbraids an admin for misapplying WP:BLOCK (which they haven't, per BLOCK#Purpose and goal - point 1) when they are seemingly incapable of writing script that is bug free. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, and further endorse Neil's suggestion to purge his monobook. These regular appearances at ANI are getting really tedious, and the behaviour I'm seeing, as an uninvolved outsider who's never interacted with Betacommand, is that of someone who just doesn't get it. Where automated edits have been shown to be problematic, a clueful editor would voluntarily avoid making similar edits... as opposed to finding ways to wikilawyer their way around the spirit of the law while sticking to the letter. Enforcement would seem to be the only remaining option. EyeSerenetalk 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (note: non-admin) and reccommend adoption of manual editing proposal. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse without support for the block length (I don't want the next person to think they have to inch up to 48 hours because the last one was for 24), and I also endorse the manual editing proposal. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse and also scratch my head at Betacommand's inability to recognize that he's digging his own hole. At the same time, I also strongly recommend closing this thread before it turns into the usual "let's ban BC" vs "let's not". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A suggestion to mitigate problems in future

    Having following this and the previous case on the fringe, it seems that the problem is 1) the community decision on Beta's editing behavior is not 100% clear on the use of assisted scripts and 2) Beta's (AGF) manual scripts appear to run untested or unchecked on a large # of articles before a problem is found. Given that, for the first, there's no bright line between manual, semi-automated, and fully-automated, we need a solution that takes this arbitrariness into account.

    Thus, might I suggest that we request (not demand or require) that Beta (and a similar remedy for anyone in the future) propose at some fixed page what manually-assisted script/semi-automated tool he plans to use and its purpose, and to test it on a small number of pages, linking to those pages. If, within 24/48 hrs, no one has objected to its use, Beta's free to go ahead, realizing that if the edits appear to be wrong, he needs to stop use immediately and readdress the problems, then rerequest use of that script/tool on this page. If the request is denied to start, then he shouldn't run that script/tool at all. Failure to check first or stop when requested should then be blocked as per the community solution. --MASEM 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think the only way to mitigate problems in the future is to permanently ban Betacommand from the project. There are people here who will absolutely never give up until he is gone. Worse, they are exceptionally vocal and strident in their insistence he be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks like a failure to WP:AGF on your part. It seems to imply that there is some kind of stalking of Betacommand by those who are looking for any excuse, no matter how tenuous, to ban him. I just don't see that. Certainly there are several people who have a bee in their bonnet about this, having seen him being given a quite breathtaking number of chances to reform, but I don't see a vendetta. As somebody who has rarely if ever weighed in on this, but who has come to see his position as increasingly untenable, it is my belief that he needs to understand that he is not only drinking in the last chance saloon, but he is sitting by the exit. It seems perfectly clear to me that we should welcome his constructive edits, but that he has repeatedly shown a cavalier lack of discipline in turning loose poor quality automated code on the live site, and an unacceptable degree of hostility to those who take issue with his maverick coding. He must refrain from doing those things that he has time and again proved to lack the required skill for, and if he refuses to abide by that restriction, he must ultimately cease contributing entirely. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF doesn't assume that we should forever more assume people have the best of intentions, despite blatant evidence otherwise. There are definitely people stalking Betacommand, and would be happiest if he were banned. The quality of his contributions are of subjective measurement. Some have found them highly, highly helpful and his services have been specifically requested. Others see that work and scream high holy that he's the anti-christ. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right we don't. Which means that also goes both ways. BC has burned even the remotest hint of good faith he has left with his continued testing of the communities patience. The people calling for anything short of a ban should remember that. Someone acting in good faith wouldn't threaten administrators against potential sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. There undoubtedly has been stalking and harassment of Beta in the past, especially (unsurprisingly) related to his fair-use work, but in those cases Beta almost always had policy on his side. This is somewhat different, and I don't see the previous "usual suspects" in the discussions above. Black Kite 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh, just indef him already. He clearly is never going to learn. Jtrainor (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interpretation of the "threat"

    I read "Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated." differently than others: He has a lot of stuff there besides tools - I just previewed his monobook.js, and it's understandable he'd be pissed to lose _all_ of that because someone just blanked it. --Random832 (contribs) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not forget to quote the second part shall we? such blatant abuse and disregard for me will end in bad results for whom ever decides to be that disrespectful to me it is a threat plain and simple. For whatever reason he thought it was appropriate, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Any admin would happily provide him a backup copy for when he'd be permitted to use it again. Regardless, this was his first response to an item being discussed as possible sanction, it hadn't even been agreed upon at that point. It only furthers the evidence of his behaviour and inappropriateness for this community. The community is discussing sanctioning him and its not up to him to dictate how that sanction will go. He can either like or leave.--Crossmr (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, here's Betacommand's current account status:
    1. BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Bot account, indef blocked in June 2008 to enforce sanction against running bots.
    2. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Sockpuppet account, indef blocked in May 2008.
    3. Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Main account, currently blocked for 24 hours. Extensive block history.
    4. Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Alternate account, not currently blocked, not used since June 2008. Previously blocked for misuse of alternate accounts.
    --John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend upping the block (likely expired, I didn't even look) to indef for the threat to the community. Until that is explained or retracted, he should be treated same as the nutters who say 'we'll sue you if you don't let our myspace bands article stay'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Severe over reaction. If someone came into your userspace and obliterated something you'd worked hard on, you'd be quite upset too, and I'm sure it would turn out badly. He didn't threaten to kill or sue anyone. Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not *his* userspace and we delete things people worked hard on day in and day out. We expect new editors to understand that this is so, so Betacommand should have no problem with the concepts. I've blanked User:Betacommand/monobook.js and protected it. There are a million and one things can be done to help the project that don't need any special tools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eek... while I can't deny that I've considered doing this, I certainly wouldn't have, and were I not worried that it may be considered wheel-warring, I'd probably revert that. You'll find (as you surely knew, if you'd read the relevant discussions) that you'll have a lot of opposition to this... TalkIslander 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only for an hour or two. One of the wiki BFFs of Betacommand will undo it anyway. I'll be nothing short of amazed if it's still blanked and protected when I get up tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's anything there crucial to Beta's user interface, he can quite easily explain it and ask an admin to restore it, can he not? Franamax (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, maybe someone better at javascript, could look it over, and restore the more harmless things. I can't read the stuff at all, but, do we even know if that was used to do the edits in question? If not, what's the point of blanking this, now? SQLQuery me! 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely blanking it does seem rather excessive. While I don't have time to review all of it, quite a lot appear to be user-interface things and not tools. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off with his head!Because I wouldn't know what was semi-automated wizardry and what was useless chrome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Latest set of edits were likely AWB or pywiki, not javascript. If you "wouldn't know", why did you take the step of blanking the monobook? Gimmetrow 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still blocked, no? It hasn't been discussed yet. Give it some time. No reason to blank his monobook in this manner. Jennavecia (Talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing, though. I guess now we will know how Betacommand reacts to having his monobook blanked. He was quite explicit about how he would feel about it being edited selectively to remove simi-automated tools. I'm not sure if blanking it entirely counts, but I think a lot of people will be watching Betacommand's reaction very closely. If this is what is required to get the message across to him, then maybe this is what is required. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read it all pretty well. A lot of it is admin stuff he won't be using, some of it is identifiably used to make "automatic" edits within the edit box (and automatically save sometimes), a whole bunch of other scripts are loaded too. I could chop it apart pretty well, but I won't bother while it's up in the air. The best approach would be for Beta to identify what he needs. Gimmetrow, I think Angus is working on the precautionary principle - it is certainly possible to edit with a blank monobook. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kekrops personal attack and profanities

    here and here

    by User:Kékrōps

    --193.198.2.199 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Next time, please use WP:AIV for obvious cases of this sort.  Sandstein  11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have been too hasty; the infractions were from August 25 and therefore somewhat stale. I have no problem with another administrator undoing that block in response to a reasonable unblock request.  Sandstein  11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the unblock request was not exactly what I like to see, but since this report was a little stale I can't object too much to Stifle's reducing the block to three hours. I'll also leave a note with some friendly advice for the future. — Satori Son 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the remaining IP autoblock and left a note. — Satori Son 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inexcusable personal attack

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for a month.  Sandstein  12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Located here from User_talk:214.13.162.2. This is nothing short of slander. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: sections rolled together after duplicate report. Sigh. I was hoping for a constructive argument with this editor, who disagrees with the film project's inclusion of links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Unfortunately, I just noticed this edit in his/her recent contributions to an editor with the opposing viewpoint ("DIE IN A FIRE!") Steve T • C 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A month, to let him cool off. And if he does it again... fire him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, you almost deserve a block for that pun-ishment, Bugs. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's a rule against pun-itive blocks. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrivance

    The William Rodriguez page has been a mess for months now, with edit warring and sockpuppetry. Because this also involves BLP and other serious issues, I am posting this here instead of the suspected sockpuppets page in hopes this gets attention.

    • Wtcsurvivor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked in late May for disruption and Wikipedia policy violations. I do believe that this is either the subject of the article or someone close to him, given how dedicated the user has been in editing this article (and pretty much just that article). Also, the tone and content of the edits make this clear. The problems are long drawn out over months before the block.

    Also, the way they all use edit summaries is telling, some adding the four "~" in the edit summary, and other characteristics. In the most recent edit summary by 69.116.203.231, he mentions another user's real first name, [144] With this edit summary, I can't ignore the page any longer. The user's name is known from elsewhere on the Internet, with the dispute carrying over to the Wikipedia page. This is not the first time for mentioning other users' real first names, with this previously done by Wtcsurvivor. [145]

    I am not an uninvolved admin, so can do nothing but recommend other admins please take a look. I'm quite tired of this ongoing drama. --Aude (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's ongoing edit warring there, so I indefinitely protected the article. Ping me when it gets sorted, okay? lifebaka++ 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HarryAlffa

    User:HarryAlffa is exerting ownership over Solar System, including a number of personal attacks, despite repeated warnings (see User talk:HarryAlffa, and note that he has acknowledged more warnings by removing them). Three other editors (myself, User:Ckatz, and User:Serendipodous) raised these issues in a Wikiquette alert (permanent link), but Harry has continued his pattern of insulting comments. His behavior makes it very difficult for the other editors to make improvements to the article, so I think some administrator intervention is now necessary.

    Many of his difficult comments are listed in the wikiquette alert, such as accusing Ckatz of lying, saying I "show a lack of cognitive ability," calling Serendipodous "Sod", calling other editors "drunk", and, after I said I'm a scientist, saying "if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!" He also accused me of operating Ckatz and Serendipodous as sock puppets.

    Today, he said "The version [Ckatz] obliterated was a merging of what I had done on Ice plus what Serendipodus had done on Rock and Gas" (ownership) and "Ckatz and Ashill's rv was emotionally motivated, not logically." "I can only shake my head in pity at Ashill 'not liking the wording' of "intrinsically bound". That was a sentence with beauty and truth. Only a philistine would fail to appreciate it." Lastly, Harry said "I have no need to attach any adjectives to [Serendipodous], appropriate ones will spring to the mind of any intelligent reader. " —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having examined the article and talk page, it appears to me that all involved parties are intelligent, well-meaning people who have contributed substantially to the article. This may be an ideal case for mediation. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that you also review HarryAlffa'a contribution history. In particular, his edit summaries and talk page contributions illustrate a pattern of behaviour that - while not extreme - is becoming increasingly disruptive . Since resuming editing in mid-2008, he has focused virtually exclusively on adding his particular changes to just one article, Solar System, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to other contributors. --Ckatzchatspy 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User:Looie496 has offered informal mediation at Talk:Solar System, to which User:Serendipodous and I have agreed. If User:HarryAlffa also agrees, administrative action would be inappropriate for the time being. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sceptre blocked indefinitely

    Closing to centralize discussions - we should talk it over with Sceptre on his talk, or else on the RfC for Sceptre. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry. In a nutshell, he used an IP to harass kurt and Giano (You can see the contributions here). He's just posted an unblock request, and I'd like to guage opinion about what we do. Quite frankly I'm appalled at what he's done, and I'd support the block staying for a considerable length of time. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, maybe not indef but definitely warrants a block of at least 2 weeks. I'd decline the unblock, GDonato (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of if he is to be unblocked, he has violated the trust of the community, so someone ought to deflag his account creator status at [146]. MBisanz talk 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone. Removed by Jennavecia. Synergy 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved parties may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 as well as the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Sceptre_-_Abuse_of_rollback in deciding what is best in this situation. MBisanz talk 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Strongly support the block by FT2. Totally unacceptable behaviour. Given Sceptre's recent history of vandalism and disruption, a block is completely justifiable. Sceptre needs to show he is committed to editing without disrupting the project and its editors before an unblock is considered. EJF (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock once the editor assures us it will not occur again. I'm not a fan of punitive blocks. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (multi ec) :Very juvenile, the comments that is. I have no experience with Sceptre but see that he/she has a long contribution history and a long punitive block seems to be a shame. Perhaps an apology to kmweber and Giano, an apology to the community, and a short block would be more just. (Assuming that Sceptre's history is otherwise reasonably clean.) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You do know that Sceptre is a former admin, de-rollbacked former vandal fighter who has been blocked on other occasions? MBisanz talk 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, that behavior is absolutely positivity unacceptable. Any unblock needs to come through Arbcom. RxS (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - He definitely, IMO, needs to apologise to KMWeber and Giano for harrasement if unblocked. There was a discussion actually just yesterday about Sceptre and his "abuse" of rollback at AN. I think he should be kept blocked as it is clear this user has civility problems with both KMWeber and Giano. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's staggering to me is that there is no apology and he's currently arguing that it's not big deal because changing someone's name to read KUNT is "vandalism" and not harassment, like it makes semi-acceptable. --Procutus (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse This was completely childish (especially coming from an ex admin) and the block was entirely appropriate. Wait until the Arbitration findings are finished before a block length is discussed. Synergy 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What really needs to happen here is that we all stop wasting time scolding, counseling, tolerating, and discussing Sceptre, and move on with project work. Dozens of hours are going to be wasted on the RfC, ArbCom bullshit, etc. Just indef block as a sock and move on. Tan ǀ 39 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for that Tan. But hes already been blocked indef. It was his unblock request that brought this here. If no one wants to unblock, then we know how this will end. Synergy 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indefinite block on the basis that doesn't necessarily mean blocked permanently - at the moment his attitude is that vandalising other editors user space is acceptable, so a block is clearly appropriate. However, if he apologises, then a finite block - perhaps of a week - could be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No way in hell should we consider banning Sceptre; despite his civility issues, he is a good contributor (huh, maybe him and Giano were meant for each other.) We should see some conciliatory measures taken, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Until he admits he was wrong, apologizes, and on the condition no further covert misdeeds come to like, I will not support an unblock. MBisanz talk 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sceptre should be unblocked if and when he agrees not to interact with or comment about Kurt or Giano in any way, shape, or form. — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the link to ArbCom regarding this matter? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - remain at indefinite until the Frostie Jack matter is concluded, when it can be revisited, or upon any other change in circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sceptre does a lot of good work. He also lets himself get wound up too easily. He seems like he's had a chip on his shoulder for ahwile now, which is unfortunate. He's not the first otherwise constructive contributor to be caught using a sockpuppet to "blow off steam" and vandalize; I won't name others out of respect, but they have generally been allowed to make amends and resume editing.

      I'm not a big fan of forced apologies; I think they're demeaning to both sides and ultimately meaningless. I'd rather have us come back to this block in a week and unblock him with the understanding that he will stay away from Giano/Kmweber, or at least interact civilly with them when necessary in projectspace. I don't know what it would take to get the message that if someone annoys you, the best approach is to ignore them. Honestly, the absolute worst thing you could do to Kurt would not be to ban him or vandalize his userpage, but to stop paying attention to him. But then, Sceptre's hardly the only Wikipedian who doesn't get that.

      Anyhow, I think a week is enough. If I catch an editor with much less to their credit than Sceptre at WP:SSP, I generally give the sockmaster 72 hours to a week. OK, we don't need to go easier on someone just because they make good contributions, but we certainly don't need to be harsher toward them than toward a garden-variety sockpuppeteer/vandal. I'd like to see a commitment from Sceptre to avoid Kurt and Giano for his own sanity, but I don't think we need to force it. Either he'll learn from this or he won't. MastCell Talk 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse block---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse block; I'm certainly no fan of Giano or Kurt, but such baiting is completely unacceptable especially from someone who knows better. It was a wilful attempt at creating drama and bad feelings, and the exact opposite of what we need now. Once the AC matter is concluded, I expect the AC might look at Sceptre formally and place a bound on it, but unblocking before then would be a Bad Idea(tm). — Coren (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse shortening of block. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block --Winger84 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse shortening block - Sceptre has apologized on his talk page. I suggest unblocking him, allowing him to apologize to the relevant parties, and then letting him go. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too endorse the notion of shortening the block. As stated above, Sceptre has offered an apology (even if his arm was twisted to secure it). I'm not sure what block length is sufficient here, but I doubt a longer block will have any longer "fix" for the situation. If it were up to me, I'd shorten the block to "time served" and allow Sceptre to make his amends and get back to work, so to speak. Should the situation arise again, a long-term block might be necessary but an indef at this time is uncalled for. Shereth 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indef block - (ec) I think Mastcell and LessHeard vanU have the right idea. Block for a week (which gives the FrostieJack crap time to be concluded), and then unblock. I think it serves as an excellent reminder that there isn't a dual definition as to what harassment entails, as per his talk page comments here and here. One rule for everyone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot indefinitely block Sceptre. End of. Considering the minimal (if anything!) amount of day-to-day trouble he causes, compared to the incredible value he adds as an editor, particularly the Doctor Who WikiProject, where he has brought lots and lots and lots of the more recent articles up to GA and FA status - this is utterly absurd. To be honest, Will adds as much if not more than, say, Betacommand, and causes so much less trouble, you have to give him at least a chance. And I'm not entering any further dialogue about this, because I know someone will shout at me due to the Beta reference. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As MastCell says, the problem here is that Will just doesn't seem to "get it". An unblock that is conditional on an apology isn't the right way to go. But just telling him to stay away from KMWeber and Giano isn't really a satisfactory solution either - it fixes the symptom, but not the underlying problem. I think Cas is on the right track at the RFC - either formally or informally, Will needs to agree to some sort of mentorship, and needs to work on backing away from problems. The recent conversation at AN about his use of rollback exhibits the same problem as the current conversation on his talk page - an unwillingness to say "I'm wrong". Well, that doesn't make him unique.

      Over the last 4 years (can you believe it?!) I've seen too many good contributors spiral out of control here. That doesn't help us - it waste's people's time, it costs us good editors, it creates more antipathy towards the project. A block isn't going to solve anything, it just creates a bit of breathing room within which to craft a solution. Is there someone who is (a) willing, and (b) acceptable to Will, who could serve as a mentor? Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sceptre's most recent comment still shows a disturbing lack of clue, I would strongly support a mentorship if we are going to unblock in the near-term. MBisanz talk 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, my support for an unblock is declining with more posts. MBisanz talk 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...yeah. To his credit, he isn't trying to hide anything ("Jimbo considered banning me..."). But he really doesn't get it. Some sort of mentorship - by someone he'd take seriously - is desperately needed. Guettarda (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block for now. I blocked the IP that Sceptre was using to harrass Kurt a few days ago; unfortunately I softblocked it by mistake, which meant that Sceptre could still edit through it. A new, or even new-ish, account that had produced those IP edits would've been indeffed in a flash, though, without any opportunity to say sorry. Given Sceptre's failure to accept that this was harassment on his talkpage, the fact that an apology had to be dragged out of him, and the complete failure to assume good faith of the blocking admin in his unblock request, I'd say that some sort of block that says "No - you don't do this" is completely in order. Black Kite 17:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. User blatantly does not understand that what he did was the very definition of abusive sockpuppetry. He does seem remorseful, but it appears to be remorse over getting caught not for his actions. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - And the talk of shortening it is silly. It's indefinite, not infinite. Shorten it to what? We need to leave it as is until the situation with the CUs and ArbCom are resolved. Leave it alone, otherwise it just lengthens the block log and serves an unnecessary purpose. Jennavecia (Talk) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Shorten it to fit the crime, is what I meant. I can see leaving it in place until the CU and ArbCom issues/Frosty Jack issues are resolved, that makes perfect sense. Keeper ǀ 76 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. - I do not endorse an indefinite block, but certainly some sort of block of a non-temporary length is in order in this case, per MastCell (talk · contribs) and Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) - However GDonato (talk · contribs) and Jennavecia (talk · contribs) have also made wise comments here, so I defer to community consensus. Hopefully the processes in place through either Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 and/or the Arbitration Commitee can address some of these issues with all parties involved. I also think that Mentorship is in order, will suggest that below. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, but certainly not indefinite. Some kind of parole (like I was on) could help greatly, but blocking him indefinitely is almost certainly not the answer. Yes, he's done a few bad things, but we all make mistakes. He has done a lot of good for this project, both via content and administrative tasks from when he were an admin. Qst (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse David's suggestion. Sceptre apologized and i'd say to shorten the block because this thing is getting ridiculously out of hand. ☃☄ --creaɯy!Talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indefinite block, not necessarily an infinite one, but certainly until the blocking arbitrator and checkuser feels all issues are resolved to his satisfaction.  Sandstein  17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the apology - it's pretty pathetic, in my opinion. Pretty typical of the sort of non-apology "I'm sorry I got caught" kind of thing we see from politicians these days. And I'm still baffled as to the whole "It's just vandalism, not harassment" thing. I have to endorse until we get a more satisfactory response from this editor. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - It needs to stay as is until this is sorted out. Rather disturbing that he would do this. --Coffee // talk // ark // 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentorship

    Perhaps Mentorship would be in order here. This is something that could be worked out in conjunction with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 and with the Arbitration Committee. I do not feel that I am the right person for the task, but it might be a good idea to be discussed. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor's career here seems to be going in the wrong direction. Mentorship? Maybe, if he's willing - but maybe a long vacation would be in order first. One of the two axioms: "How badly does he want to edit?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. It's like he's working his way from Vice President down to Mail Room clerk. He knows the rules. He needs to set a spell and reflect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good path to go down, I've asked him on his talk page to make some suggestions. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposing mentorship for an editor who has been active for 3 years and is a former admin is at best naive and at worst insulting. At this point he clearly knows all the policies and pillars and chose to ignore them. Maybe he needs some friends to gripe to or a blog to let off steam, but a mentor is not going to be able to stop someone from logging off and vandalizing as an anon to let off steam. Thatcher 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought, but if Sceptre is on a static IP, why not indefinitely softblock it? If his account is unblocked, then he wouldn't be tempted to do that again. Black Kite 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not possibly agree more with Thatcher. Mentorship is for newer users who do not yet know the ropes. Tan ǀ 39 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. He isn't trying to be deceptive about what he's doing, he just doesn't seem to get the fact that what he's doing is wrong. Look at his most recent comments (like what MBisanz linked to above) - he seems not to understand why what it is he is doing is wrong. Having someone to talk about his actions might be helpful. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (after ec) I also concur with Thatcher. Sceptre knows the rules, chose to ignore them, tried to conceal it, and now is protesting that it was not as bad as virtually everyone else is telling him it was. How precisely will a mentor help here? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec X exponent)Mentorship is also for those who have forgotten how to hold onto the ropes and are willing to allow another editor to help them "get a grip". Sceptre didn't seem to find the idea insulting, and agreed to think about it on his talkpage. I would volunteer, I haven't done much with Sceptre in the past (positive or negative, that I recall). I've been here over two years less than Sceptre and wouldn't presume to "tell him how to edit". I certainly think I might be able to tell him "how not to edit" though. Of course, Sceptre's decision really, not ours to decide if "mentorship is an insult". Keeper ǀ 76 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at what Cas had to say on the RFC. This seems to have the basis for a useful model for mentorship. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well at least Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) thinks it is a good idea. I am aware of Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s prior experience and that is one reason why I thought that someone more experienced could be the mentor, perhaps a member of ArbCom or something - but hey this was just a suggestion to open up to the community. I'll defer to consensus on what the community thinks is best in this situation, and/or the processes of RFC/ArbCom. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not intended as an excuse for Sceptre's behavior: You do know that he's a kid, right? Corvus cornixtalk 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another good reason to not make children admins, except in cases of exceptional merit.  Sandstein  18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So am I, what of it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not this shit here, guys. Take it somewhere else if you want to get huffy, David. Tan ǀ 39 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I don't know about mentorship in this case, but perhaps after the block (which I endorse but suggest should be reduced to two weeks at this point, giving the editor plenty of time to reflect over the foolishness of his actions - especially considering the trust the community has placed in him in the past), some sort of community probation would be beneficial with a couple of trusted admins providing some oversight to ensure that he doesn't get into this kind of silliness again. This would provide a couple of people who would be able to say 'hey, that's not a good idea' if they note Sceptre sliding into a situation like this again, and perhaps offer some assistance in handling the issues that crop up around him. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossposted from Sceptre's talkpage by request

    Sceptre asked for the below to be crossposted here. Here is the comment that he requested to be crossposted here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think MastCell and Keeper have hit the nail on the head here. It was a terrible mistake and I regret it. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, editor to vandalise while logged out when annoyed. I think blocking me with no warning or defence, for a tenuous claim for harassment (four edits does not harassment make - my intention was to vandalise the page, not to harass Kurt). About 30 months ago, I did engage in harassment of another editor (which I regret as one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made, and consequently apologised a thousand times), and the matter was deferred to Jimbo. Jimbo considered banning me, but was courteous enough to contact me to say "please don't do it again" - if I promised, he would take no action. And I've been true to my word. I have not engaged in wilful harassment since. If a checkuser emailed me privately beforehand to explain myself in regards to the vandalism, I would've admitted to it and said I wouldn't do it again. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

    User: Tocino and his behavoior

    Tocino (talk · contribs)

    He makes propaganda comments about "seperatists" and other things. His aktivity at the sites about Kosovo are disturbing. Please do anything about him.84.134.104.242 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First, have you tried to talk to him directly? Second, can you tell us, where that allegedly happened (provide diffs please)? Third, you should consider dispute resolution if that happens. SoWhy 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, all I'm seeing is a lot of harrassment to him from someone with an 84.134 prefix, which, under the circumstances, leads me to believe this is you. HalfShadow 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the love of god, please help

    See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

    I've run out of patience here. Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) is relentlessly trolling Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, after I reverted his rewrite of a sourced lede to a totally unsourced version. So far as I can make out he's trying to say that we should totally change the scope of the article, when consensus is quite clear that the current scope (and content) is not only acceptable but also desirable. He's already had a 48h page ban page, along with a long history of disruption in this topic-area. And now I see he's turned his userpage into a POV fork of the article in question. Can someone enforce the article probation, but this time to the tune of something like six months. I am bashing my head against a brick wall trying to argue rationally with this Afrocentrist. Help? Moreschi (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that is long overdue, looking at it. Ice Cold Beer has issued a notice to that effect, and frankly I think we should consider blocking if he doesn't drop it. Relentless civil POV-pushing is simply not acceptable, it causes good editors to burn out and undermines the ability to assume good faith. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orator reversion

    As I just cleaned up the list of modern examples, I'd like someone else to look this over.

    This is an IP on his third revert to add Ted Kennedy to the list. (Note that I don't believe that he was one of those which I pared from the list.)

    Those listed are individuals noted for oratory, beyond just the norm of political (or religious) speeches. (To list everyone who has ever made a speech would be prohibitive, obviously.)

    I've requested that the IP add a reference before re-adding, which hasn't happened.

    Anyway, third-party action/opinion welcome. - jc37 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism cum legal threat

    Both vandalism and legal threat? Special:Contributions/99.249.172.137. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really a legal threat (describing something as libellous isn't a legal threat, nor is saying that someone has been warned by the police). Unhelpful, and clearly sockpupetry, so rolled back and blocked. GbT/c 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he's saying he's going to contact the "Wikipedia police", whoever they are. Corvus cornixtalk 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Royce Mathew (Pirates of the Caribbean)

    Hello!

    Just recently, there was an issue with User:Disneysuit ([147]), who was permanently blocked, because he kept posting one-sided arguments on his view of an "ongoing" lawsuit between himself and Disney on the Pirates of the Caribbean page, in addition to posting personal attacks against other users (myself being an example). We have asked him not to further do this and once again, he has posted the same information online using an IP address: [148] - his edits on the Jerry Bruckheimer page have also been reverted.

    I'm not entirely sure as to what to do at this point, but he does not seem to want to comply with Wikipedia Rules which have so often been brought up in his situation. I thought it best to bring this up to you, the administrators, who would know what is best.

    Thank you for your time! BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify:
    It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.

    The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
    (Account information: block log • suspected sockpuppets • confirmed socks)

    Sock puppet report

    The talk page of this indefinitely blocked user was deleted. However, I thought it might be wise to link to a suspected sock puppet report regarding edits made from IP addresses that appear to be the same person evading the block. The report contains a concise summary of the situation, including a description of what led to the original block. &#151;Whoville (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats after repeatedly inserting biased, COI edits regarding his complaint against Disney. He showed no willingness to accept Wikipedia's policies and the consensus of other editors. &#151;Whoville (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    help!! User:Onceloose

    Onceloose (talk · contribs) I have just about had it with this user. I was contacted by both him and Pink Evolution (talk · contribs) about a disagreement on both Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song) about the placing of the song at the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Onceloose insists that the song finished "joint last" with 14 points even though the official website shows a break in the tie with 23rd, 24th, and 25th place being awarded with Isis Gee receiving 24th of 25 entries. There is no source that says in words "the tie was broken" but it is shown broken in the table here. In past contests when there was a tie, say in 2003 when there was a tie for 11th, both countries are shown in the table as 11th place, unlike the 2008 where the tie seems to have been broken and the placings awarded. He undid my edit [149] which showed the song placing 24th which isn't last when there are 25 entries and also the other source saying that one of the other tied songs was awarded 23rd place. He lectures me about user:Pink Evolution being blocked in the past [150] and how she must be wrong here too and then tells me as an edit summary for his version that there is an "administrator approved" wording and a consensus but fails to prove any of it [151]. I warned him about removing verified content and adding unsourced information [152] because he has failed to supply proof of the song placing anything other than 24th of 25 and is refusing to accept any view other than his own. I think his actions need to be reviewed and a block possibly issued. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He also, added himself to the wikiproject and deleted another member [153] and issued me and pink evolution the vandalism warning I gave him?!?![154][155]. This smells like disruptive editing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And now harassing me by warning me again after I removed the first warning [156]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=234873562"