Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for ([1]), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution ([2]) and other encounters such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is.[3] The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Catherineyronwode

The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

(removed to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Wikipedia is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn (talk · contribs) has now retired, according to his user page, but if someone skilled with POV battles is looking for something to consider, I'd suggest going through this case - it looks like there's a problem here, but it's awfully detailed. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure this is resolved, despite Hrafn's retirement...Isn't there a saying about dancing on graves? --Smashville^BONK! 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad case where three or four, dare I say "cabal"...no better not, unrelated editors...oh wait a minute, they're not. Let me start again, there are three or four editors who think that original research is sufficient for placing their POV on articles. Typical of Wikipedia's broken system, instead of understanding that their edits are POV, they game the system through MEDCOM, ARBCOM, RfC, whatever else they can use, which frustrates editors. Hrafn is a great editor. He dealt with arcane subjects on this encyclopedia that we have to clean up. There was a personality clash. There was mild uncivil comments from both sides. Then the three or four editors dancing on Hrafn's grave on this ANI started wikistalking and moved into civil pushing. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting this exchange and the CVU barnstar above it...it's a sad state of affairs when users drive off other users and then pat each other on the back for doing it. And I think WP:AGF can be ignored once a user tells another user, "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.". Essentially, "Look out, you've made my list." --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Firstly, please note that I came into this dispute because Hrafn asked for assistance, with particular reference to a page he'd been working on when Catherine and Madman had intervened, with an open statement from her indicating that she was wikistalking Hrafn.[4] A "real legal threat" she had not yet withdrawn had to be cleared before discussions could start.[5] By that time she had posted links to her page which forms the basis of her report here, and which appears to be a very badly researched attack page with ludicrously inaccurate assertions that have been drawn to her attention,[6] but which she still has not fully corrected in her posting here. Other claims are equally invalid, though I've not checked every one of them. The underlying dispute is between "anti-deletionists" who think "You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false."[7] and editors like Hrafn who take WP:V as having priority. In discussions the "anti-deletionists" have pointed to WP:EP (WP:IMPERFECT[8] as a policy which appears to sanction preserving information regardless of whether or not it has a reliable source – in my opinion that policy is outdated and needs early improvement to bring it into line with core content policies and current practice. If priority is given to preserving unreferenced information, articles would never be deleted, and the instructions in WP:V about removing such information would have to be changed. That's not my understanding of the priorities of Wikipedia, but Catherine makes it clear that she feels that we must keep articles about non-notable organisations or individuals with only self-published sources as references, on the basis that she finds them interesting, and keep in information even if a simple check shows that it's inaccurate or unsourced. There's quite a culture clash there. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) tweaked dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that this is an issue about Hrafn -- the real issue is Cat and her belief that any crap, even if not meeting RS and V, is OK because she wants it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my name as one of the editors who are unhappy with Catherine's approach to Wikipedia. And what did here comment to OrangeMarlin on her talk page mean -- "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again." An accusation of sock-puppetry or? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, Hrafn's behavior as shown in Catherine's report with diffs would surely be a lawsuit waiting to happen. He could easily get fired for targeting a specific religious group like he did. Hrafn retired because his or her bad behavior came to light. If a couple of editors could simply say something not in WP:AGF or unWP:CIVIL or merely cleverly hidden slander to get rid of someone, then Catherine and I would already have retired ourselves considering this apparent backlash against us. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a workplace, and doesn't fall under laws (which are, after all, specific to localities) applicable to workplaces. Wikipedia is a private organization working off of private rules and regulations. Now looking over Hrafn's actions, it certainly appears that he has a partisan axe to grind - citation tagging every phrase up to and including "He lectured extensively in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain obnoxious - but losing your cool in return is unhelpful.  RGTraynor  05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, deluded assertions about Hrafn's work and character could result in a libel action. For example "Here is where hrafn made the deletion and also tried to assert that Affirmations are "supplicatory" prayer, demonstrating a basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter:"[9]. The example is illuminating, because Catherine does not seem to have realised that Hrafn made just one edit, removing the square brackets on each side of the word Affirmation with the accurate edit summary (rm self-link). This was undoing part of the previous edit by Vernon89 which linked the title in error.[10] Cat's statement below that revision "[Affirmative prayer article existed at this point, hence the short defining sentence and the link from the dab page]" is simply irrelevant – it was a new self-link and nothing more. Her statements "[an editor simply tried to remove the negative word hrafn had added] ["supplicatory" was a term added added by hrafn]" and "it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the Affirmative prayer page out of existance]" are untrue – the "negative word" supplicatory was added by Vernon39, and there was no link to Affirmative prayer, contrary to Cat's erroneous assertion.[11] Assuming good faith, it appears that Cat is simply incompetent and does not realise that she is libelling Hrafn. It certainly demonstrates basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with analysing edit histories. The other examples I've looked at are just as incompetent, in different ways. Regarding RGTraynor's very sensible point, dealing with repeated refusals to provide adequate references is trying, and without checking, the circumstances of asking for a specific detail to be referenced may have been reasonable in context. . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) grammar and formatting correction dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems clear that either Catherine is incompetent, as Dave charitably suggests, or she has embraced "Wikipedia is a battleground" (currently the theme on her talk page) as her method of interaction here. I suggest either mindset would be improved by a mentor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A statement from retirement

Given that I have not been allowed to retire in peace, but rather have:

1. seen no let up to the amount of false information and false charges leveled against me;
2. that without informing me, User:Catherineyronwode tacked her trumped up 'ANI Proposal' onto User:Firefly322's unrelated DOA AN/I complaint shortly before my retirement; and
3. this complaint now seems to have turned into some sort of weird undead RFC/U (which has neither been properly certified with "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, nor deleted),

I have decided to make this "statement from retirement" answering these false charges and setting the record straight.

I wish to make the following points:

1. On the "War against New Thought and Christian biographies and books" Catherineyronwode
   1. Repeated information knowing it to be false
   2. Simply made up a bad-faith explanation for actions that were demonstrably made in good faith
   3. Fails to demonstrate a breach of wikipedia policy
2. On the matter of "Incivility", both Catherineyronwode, and those who assisted her in compiling this list were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison.
3. Her evidence is defective, in that it frequently lacks supporting difs, and/or relies of hearsay evidence.

I will not bore you with the details here -- these details can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn#Response: a statement from retirement & User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delighted and surprised to see your statement, Hrafn, hope you're well. The dispute clearly remains unresolved, but at 08:29, 15 September 2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise rightly deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn" as‎ (not properly certified, no evidence of dispute resolution.), not long after I'd endorsed your statement. My muddle in that I should first have provided evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and another user have done the same.

Confusingly, the page was headed "Not yet active - have created this to move an AN/I matter to its correct location. Catherine or any other user may remove this forenote once she is satisfied with its contents." but it's correct that the 48 hour window had long passed. The page was created at 09:23, 12 September 2008 , and Users certifying the basis for this dispute was signed by Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 11 September, WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 13 September, and by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) at 10:02, 14 September. Hrafn added and endorsed his summary at 05:25, 15 September, and I added my endorsement at 08:14, 15 September, while still eating my breakfast.

Still trying to wake up, but it's time for us to put this bad dream behind us. There are important principles of WP:V underlying this dispute, and it is essential that Catherineyronwode accepts that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraws the baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at her ANI proposal,[12] posted here and then moved to RfC/Hrafn. I've asked her at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested to make a statement to that effect on this page.[13] . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Renounce your faith or meet the consequences" - I thought this was an encyclopedic colaboration, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Cue: Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I put it that both Hrafn and Catherine have nonstandard positions on the issue of verifiability. While Catherine clearly doesn't understand that tagging is a necessary part of the process of improvement of the encyclopedias value, Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences (also clearly and easily verifiable ones), tagging them and subsequently removing them if noone adds citations within a short time. If Hrafn had the time and energy to apply this policy consistently in the entirity of wikipedia in stead of only in his pet peeve topics about non-scientific belief systems only FA's would be left and wikipedia would be a collection of a few disconnected but very well sourced articles. Neither approach is useful if we want to build a wikipedia with both a sensible scope of coverage and a sensible degree of verifiability. And please don't use Jimmy Wales' quote about "some wikipedians have a bias ..." at least not such a time as when Mr. Wales explicitly states that this is supposed to be interpreted as "no sentence no matter how uncontroversial, pedestrian and common knowledge information it provides shall be allowed to remain on the project without a citation", which will incidentally also be the time when I leave this project - that would simply be too much of a waste of the content-adding editors' time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences" is contrary to my experience, and I've not seen him deleting any "pedestrian and common knowledge information" – diffs please. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a statement is tagged for citation and nobody provides one in a reasonable time (remembering that articles drop off the bottom of your watchlist if unedited for a month, tops), it means one of two things: (i) this statement wasn't so "clearly and easily verifiable", or (ii) that nobody's maintaining the article by actively watchlisting it. In the latter case, the question becomes is the unsourced material obvious truth or obvious-sounding but false truthiness that has somehow found its way onto the article? And how can you tell (as a reader or as an editor attempting maintenance) tell unless somebody provides a source? As for the "only FA's would be left" claim, this is ridiculous -- there are large numbers of articles on wikipedia that are fully verifiable, but do not yet meet FA standards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you confuse "verifiable" with "verified" - verifiable is when anybody can verify a statement by using a minimal effort to hunt down a reliable source. Several times I have been able to reinclude material deleted by you with a new source after few minutes of googling - this about topics that I have no level of expertise in. In this edit[14] you remove the information stating that "wallace wattles is best known for his book he science of getting rich" which hadn't even been tagged (the tag was about whether he was wealthy in his later years). You also remove an assertion that "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote after his death to the New Thought author Elizabeth Towne." which I was able to verify within minutes on google, and which you also yourself later admitted. You also removed two sourced statements about his involvement in politics and his influence as a inspiration for rhonda byrne. And you also remove several paragraphs that are explicitly sourced to Florence Wattles' letter (grantedly without having this sourcing in the form of a footnote). In this edit you delete and redirect a stub article about the book "the science of getting rich" - later when Catherine put up a new and much better sourced version that makes several claims to notability [USer:Jamesontai] reverts to the redirect with no explanation [15] - you later proceeded to tag for merge and notability in spite of there clearly being reliable third party sources about the book[16]. Namely the sources already presented by Catherine and the sources that I could track down within a few minutes on google. While Catherine misunderstands the usefulness of tagging this aggressive deletionist behaviour by Hrafn was clearly against the wikipedia spirit as I knew it and it caused me to step in and defend these articles that I had previously had no interest in. Secondly it should be noted that the sourcing of these articles could have been carried out in good spirit if Hrafn had posted his queries for sources using words on the talkpage instead of tagging and agressively deleting the content other editors had added OR if he had taken the few minutes and checked on google whether there were in fact reliable sources for the statements. In retrospect taking that little time would have avoided this entire dispute and saved Hrafn himself and numerous other editors hours of grief, and would have been well worth the trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we part company: I do not think that an implicit claim that 'somewhere out there some source exists that contains this information' makes it "verifiable". This would likewise seem to to go against WP:V, which explicitly clarifies verifiability as: "...that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This would appear to indicate that 'no citation of a reliable source' = 'no ability to check' = 'no verifiability'. Your definition of 'verifiability' implicitly places the burden of evidence on the removing/challenging editor (the opposite of what WP:V explicitly states) to prove that the information is false, as it is impossible to prove that such a source doesn't exist. As to your example, the article Wallace Wattles originally explicitly attributed to his daughter's letter information that was not contained in that letter. Further, the claim "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote..." remains pure original research, on the basis of not being able to find much information outside the letter. Whether it is true or not, it is not verifiable to a RS, so is not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you removed this information you hadn't even read the letter (which can be found in twenty copies in a single google search) so that is a very bad excuse. And the fact stands that you removed both sourced, easily verifiable and completely uncontroversial information in one fell swoop without having ever posted on the talk page mentioning that there was a pressing lack of sources or that some particular claims were dubious. This is agressive behaviour and I completely understand that the editors who had this article on their watchlist felt it to be unwarranted.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I removed the information, I was not even aware that the letter had been published, nor had any real expectation that it had. Now who was the person that added an explicit citation to the letter to the article (rendering it verifiable), and actually checked the article against its contents -- proving that some of this "completely uncontroversial information" was false? Was it yourself or the "editors who had this article on their watchlist" (but failed to notice the tags there for 2-3 months, until after the information was removed)? No. It was me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

[Moved from User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ]

After looking carefully through all of the evidence and responses, I endorse Hrafn's statement above. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the claim made against me just above. WP:V uses the word "unverifiable" "verifiability" for the very good reason that we do not want vandals to systematically delete any and all non-sourced but able to be sourced claims. It is a shame when people can not distinguish evidence of a difference of opinion from evidence of someone else being wrong. That you disagree with me only proves that I disagree with you and is not evidence for your claim against me. Thus the above is an unsourced attack against me. It appears to be part of the human condition for people to do what they protest others doing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WAS, my search doesn't find the word "unverifiable" in WP:V, but do note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since Hrafn indicated he did not wish discussion here, I suggest that this discussion be moved to WP:ANI#A statement from retirement. Your assent to this would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn, as it was not properly certified. I haven't looked too closely at the underlying dispute, but it also appeared to me that the RfC was quite poorly presented, extremely wordy and probably to a large extent vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut.Perf., as I indicated above you're absolutely correct in your actions. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who moved it from AN/I to RfC, I endorse this action - it appears to have been a laundry list of grievances and the evidence falls apart when examined. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have previously taken a stance against Hrafn I agree that there is probably not enough basis for an rfc or ani in the material collected by catherine - in my view this dispute has been caused by two editors who have been equally stubborn in their viewpoints and equally reluctant to use basic social skills in their communication with the other, but who have in turn continued to escalate what was not even a content dispute into what at least one of them envisions as a "wiki-war" of epic dimensions. I propose that the only sensible outcome of this spectacle would be that everyone involved take this as a chance to remember that a proper and colegial tone of communication, the assumption of good faith and staying calm under pressure may help resolve editing disputes even before they occur. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is the case that Hrafn is a bit quick to the gun, so to speak, w.r.t. enforcing WP:V, which appears arguable, I see little or no cause for a generalized RFC on Hrafn. I've worked in the same territory as Hrafn on intelligent design and several related articles, and encountered him on a few unrelated articles, e.g. in category:philosophy, and in that context I've found him to be a fairly "strict interpretationist", so to speak, of WP:V-- a fairly vigorous advocate of that policy. Clearly to me, he tends to be fairly intolerant of article content that he considers questionable and which is unsourced or questionably sourced. Several of his statements presented by Catherineyronwode, picked out of many thousands of Hrafn's edits, could I think quite reasonably be characterized as being somewhat impatient, and in several cases angry, with the person to whom they're directed. But overall I've most definitely found his edits to be very productive and helpful on topics where we've met. Catherineyronwode appears to me, judging by the tone of comments on her talk page and elsewhere, unnecessarily turned it into a battleground. I should hope there's a more rational and less personalized way to analyze, and if possible to work through, such disagreements about Hrafn's editing approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

·Maunus·ƛ·, thank you for drawing back from the stance you have previously taken against Hrafn. As I've said before, assuming good faith is essential and it is regrettable that Catherineyronwode not only failed to assume good faith, but escalated the argument into the above ANI complaint on the basis of a wildly inaccurate proposal which looks very much like an attack page and was posted here before being transferred to a now deleted RfC. She has been requested to please accept that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw her baseless accusations against Hrafn. Your attempts to pass the onus for finding citations onto the editor deleting unsourced content run completely against WP:V, and you, Cat and Madman should be working in a collegiate way to propose and discuss suitable sources instead of going into attack mode. I remain hopeful that all concerned can study WP:NAM and work to find unsourced material and either show a source or delete such unsuitable material. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way drawing back from the stance that I have had throughout this episode. I maintain that Hrafn has had a key part in creating an intolerable edit environment in the new Thought articles he has been campaigning on. I also maintain as I have throughout that the other large part of the blame falls on Catherines failure to prevent the argument from escalating. Whether Madman has an important part of the blame I will refrain from judging since I consider myself his friend and am quite possible biased in his favour - however I certainly don't believe that Hrafns counteraccusations of "gross incivility" are justified. As for my own involvement I have, contrary to what you seem to suggest, worked only on finding sources for Hrafns removed material and I have chastised both sides for their lack of civlity. I do not believe myself to have been at any point onesided in this matter although it was the excessive agressiveness in Hrafns removement of information and his responses to fellow editors that made me step into the conflict. If contrary to my belief I have been a part of the escalation of the conflict rather than its resolvement I do apologise for that, but my own involvement has not previously been the object of such accusations. As for my "attempt to pass the onus to the removing editor" this is a question of twisting words. My understanding of WP:V is that material that is likely to be challenged should be supported by reliable sources - not statements that are uncontroversial or reasonably could be expected to be uncontroversial. Nowhere does the polcit say that every statement in an article must be sourced. Nor does the policy state anything about how removal of content added in good faith should be aggresively purged from the encyclopedia instead of being amiably sourced and improved. I have my self added several megabytes of unsourced (yet completely factual and verifiable) content to wikipedia over the years - and if Hrafns understanding of WP:V is in fact the gold standard on the issue then I invite him to go through my edits and tag them for citations and delete it when I fail to provide sources within his time frame. HOwever I don't think wikipedia will be none the richer for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have some extra time at the moment, and took the liberty of picking a representative article in which Hrafn has been involved. Hrafn appears to me to have made between about 50 edits to the article on New thought starting 24 February 2008 up until 30 August 2008. The total number of edits to the article in that period of time was approximately 275. Here is the state of the article on 24 February 2008, immediately prior to Hrafn's first edit. Here is the state of the article as of Hrafn's last edit on 30 August 2008. And here is the state of the article on 15 September 2008. Understanding that numerous editors have been involved in this article in the interim, here is the diff between prior to when Hrafn got involved and 15 September 2008. Here are forty-some examples of Hrafn's edits to the article between 24 February 2008 and 30 August 2008. I missed a few of them when collecting them, but these are representative of the sort of edits Hrafn has made. Many of them involve standard MOS and other such issues relating to article presentation, and many of them are WP:V issues.

123456789101112131415161718192021

222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

It appears Hrafn takes a bit of a tough approach w.r.t. WP:V and WP:RS, but I don't see any edits here that deviate from explicit WP policy. WP:V clearly states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." [emphasis mine] The section on WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence elaborates: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]" When someone challenges or demands a citation for content I've added, I generally take it to mean that within a reasonable time after the citation is demanded, I or another user should provide some kind of sourcing for the statement or set of statements, unless it's common everyday knowledge. I could not find anything deleted by Hrafn that I thought could reasonably be considered to be common everyday knowledge. Please correct me if I'm in error about this.

... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that article, Kenosis. I would be curious as to how unsourced material that was being edit-warred over (as was happening not-uncommonly in that article) can be "common everyday knowledge". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not common everyday knowledge, but appears instead to be knowledge held by a community of adherents and by others who know this fairly broad tradition and its history, which needs sourcing if there's any question about the accuracy of statements made in the article. In any event, this particular article has now drawn the attention of a few more users including myself. I trust that with some patient work it will come together fairly well in due course. I would also trust you and Catherineyronwode and others involved in this, shall we say, intense debate?, or scuffle?, can somehow see your way clear to letting bygones be bygones and try to move forward to build better cited and more informative content in the topics on which you hold differing POVs from one another. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Hrafn has never acted in contradiction of WP:V. I maintain however that his actions have been detrimental to building a functional encyclopedia with other editors. If my articles were being held to the same standard Hrafn proposes in his "somewhat tough approach" I would have left the project long ago. The way in which he enforces policy is unreasonable in its tenacity and agresiveness in tagging and deleting and paired with his apparently poor social skills and confrontational communication strategies would have made editing intolerable. As an aside an example of what could be considered common everyday knowledge is that "Wallace Wattles is best known for his book the Science of Getting rich", at leasy it is so uncontroversial that anyone with the will to do so could have verified it in a matter of seconds, none the less it was deleted by Hrafn along with several passages of text some of which were untagged in the first diff I provided above - which was also the edit that prompted me to step in. I have said about all that I need to say - and I understand that many of you disagree with my assession that the spirit in which WP:V is enforced is just as important as its letter. I once again urge you to look through my edit history and tag all my unsourced statements and see if it makes you feel that it makes wikipedia a better place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree he could be more patient in awaiting sourcing. Please make no mistake about it though, I've worked on a fair number of relatively obscure topics, and quite often we see folks' personal knowledge, or what they think is knowledge, being put up on the pages. Quite frequently such contributions turn out to have been inconsistent with what the reliable sources say about the relevant facts and issues. I've done it myself more than once, added some statement that's important to the topic, where, upon checking the sources, it turned out to be a poor or even false representation of what the RSs say about the particular issue(s). And that doesn't even address the additional issues relating to arriving at some kind of consensus about which sources are reliable and how to present a NPOV for the reader in cases where the sources differ in their assertions about a given topic. So I understand what you're saying, and I believe I've already told Hrafn I think he's a bit quick to the gun at times in yanking unsourced content ... IMHO. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me say this: when I read every single piece of documentation listed in the Wikiquette entry, I was not at all convinced that Hrafn was a) "uncivil" enough to deserve any specific "punishment", b) nothing but a rather hard-nosed, yet committed editor, and c) a victim of a rather unceremonious drumming out of Wikipedia. Nothing I see above has changed that. I mean, let's be serious: there's still an editor's Talk page calling me a racist, and you guys are focussing on a widespread editor that maybe needs a tiny reminder about patience? Let's put our efforts where they belong. BMW(drive) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for topical issues, and no time at all for personal insults.

I see too little discussion here of the most important portions of my objections to hrafn's editing:

• Hrafn has been grossly uncivil to many editors; this is not an issue of a dispute between the two of us alone. Of the dozen or so episodes cited, only a couple involved me.

• Hrafn has selectively targeted his pet peeve topics, Christianity and New Thought, for deletion; he does not apply the same standards of verifiability to any other portion of Wikpipedia. As a side-note, i agree with Maunus: if hrafn's hyper-verifiability standards are to be applied to all of Wikipedia, let us see this made official Wikipedia policy now. We writers need a proper understanding of current and future verifiability standards, a timeline for the retrofitting of ALL of Wikipedia to these new standards, and we need to see the standrads and timeline given uniform application throughout Wikipedia -- not just in a small religious corner of the encyclopedia where hrafn has worked. I am calling for a clarification of verification standards and a statement regarding a strict, uniform timeline of implementation.

• Hrafn has devised a singular method of deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect -- which, as noted above, he has only applies to pages that fall into his pet peeve categories, Christianity and New Thought. If this method of "editing" (deletion) is going to be endorsed by admins (several have already endorsed it) and is going to spread throughout Wikipedia, we writers need a clear adminstrative and bureaucratic statement that deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect is an acceptable policy and that it will be applied uniformly across ALL Wikipedia categories on a specific timeline.

I believe that deleting text in targeted religion categories under false pretences is the mark of a fanatic more bent on deletion than on improving Wikipedia. In the case of hrafn's cuts to the Charles Haanel article, he claimed that a citation is anonymous although the author's name appears on the cited web page and he claimed that a citation is itself unsourced although a long list of printed-book sources is given by the author on the cited web page. These are indisputable examples of unreliable editoral deletions that were made in the name of "verifiability" but which were themselves in error. By granting a biased editor leave to use unsupported and false claims as a justification for topic-driven mass, rush, and undiscussed deletions, and to support his destruction of data by claims that he is merely "enforcing verifiability" is disingenuous. He was wrong. His justifications for the cuts were in error. He should have talked to the other editors.

Several opinions of me stated above were rude and offensive, obviously intentionally so. I will not reply to the rudest ones, as they are little more than generic insults. I will respond to one charge among them, since it is the only one that deals with the issues and is not an ad hominem attack:

I am indeed supportive of full inline verifiability. I believe that lack of verifiability has been Wikipedia's greatest weakness since day one, and continues to be its greatest weakness at the present time. I do not, however, believe that the oft-cited statement about ripping out unsourced material is meant to be used to target topics by category. Bringing ALL of Wikipedia up to well-sourced standards is a barn-raising goal. It should be done incrementally, and across all topics. I support it.

Are those who support hrafn's targeted deletions in his chosen religious categories open to discussing the future course of official Wikipedia policy with respect to discriminatory and topic-driven application of the new inline verifiability standards? Come on, you bold and hard-nosed administrators: Let's see a timeline. When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults? When will all of the unsourced animal species and plant species pages be hyper-tagged for deletion? If this is the new road we are following, why is it not being applied everywhere all at once -- why only in these small religion and self-help categories?

The creation and implementation of a clearly stated timeline for verifiability compliance across ALL of Wikipedia is a far more important topic for discussion than "was hrafn biased or topic-driven?" or "was hrafn uncivil?" If hrafn's retirement is more than a sham, let us move on by creating an apropriate place within Wikipedia to discuss the issues that his campaign of mass, speedy, unconsensed, and topic-driven deletions have brought up. Name a page within Wikipedia, and i will be there to discuss it with anyone, even the rudest among you. But until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it is only being done in certain subjects (and why shouldn't an editor concentrate on subjects they are interested in?) I certainly do it in other subjects. Othercrapexists is a terrible argument. Why do you ask why it's not being applied everywhere all at once when you think it should be done incrementally? And if it needs to be done incrementally, shouldn't you start with areas you are interested in? So long as you are writing edits like "64.142.90.33 (Talk) (1,822 bytes) (it's easy to add sources. Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging? Huh? Cmon, it's fun to imrove Wikipedia.)", which I believe is you not logged in, right? please don't talk about other rude editors if you want to have any credibility. Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults?" With an infrequent eye to the AfD queue, I'd say celebrity/pop culture actually fits the bill of almost half of the stuff which goes there and gets deleted. Orderinchaos 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode, you are being grossly uncivil to Hrafn, repeatedly failing to assume good faith and instead laying out your fantasy about his motivation and alleged methods, once again failing to provide any diffs to support your argument. Any editor can choose which articles they want to work on, and people inevitably work on related articles. That's normal. Regarding the Charles Haanel article, you're still trying to give credibility to the cited web page even though it's been pointed out to you that it's a commercial advertising page,[17] and hence not a reliable source. "Stubbing and redirect" is not deletion – it leaves the article history available for the original author to find good sources and reinstate the article, as the original editor understood in one of the cases you raised.[18] As you will note, another editor has done just that. That's part of the normal Wikipedia process which you don't seem to understand. I am glad that you support verification, but your proposals to introduce new timelines for compliance go directly against WP:V policy and attacking Hrafn is not the way to make such proposals. You concluded "until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work", so why not withdraw your accusations unreservedly and put this argument to rest? . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this probably needs to be moved to an RfC as Cat and Firefly seem to have no desire to drop the matter. --Smashville^BONK! 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A properly presented RfC would have to be prepared, and if it's about user conduct, "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." I've made considerable efforts to resolve the dispute and wish to see it ended with no slur on Hrafn's character and acceptance that his actions were correct, but so far have failed to achieve such resolution. Hrafn has retired and does not have email enabled, though he has made some statements from retirement. . dave souza, talk 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss with Firefly, but he merely called me immature and refused to discuss the matter, responding to my request to provide diffs by telling me to provide diffs. Apparently because I was the only one engaging him on his talk page, he found it immature...If anyone else wants to try to give it a go and maybe this won't have to reach an RfC point...--Smashville^BONK! 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Hrafn has enabled his email, so I've sent a request for him to discuss this situation with me. Both Firefly322 and Catherineyronwode have clearly been disruptive in their refusal to accept and work within policy regarding removal of inadequately sourced material, and in Catherine's case by failing to assume good faith, instead Wikistalking Hrafn to press her tendentious ideas about preserving material contrary to WP:V, and making personal attacks on his motives and integrity. Her response above at least shows acceptance of the need for verification, but her ideas of new requirements for a timeline for verifiability look a complete non-starter to me. She is of course welcome to raise her ideas on the policy talk page or at the village pump. Firefly seems to me to be a minor nuisance, and less of an issue. It could help to resolve this dispute if other admins could contact Catherine to advise her that her allegations have no credence, and that she must comply with policies when editing here. Of course if anyone wants to discuss interpretation of policies with me I'll be glad to assist, and none of the above reduces the need for everyone to behave in a civil and collegiate way. If these principles are made clear I'm sure that this dispute would be resolved. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just drop this matter?

Let's all agree to disagree and go about building a better encyclopedia. There's really nothing to be gained by re-hashing the matter. When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this, but to my mind the matter is moot. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.  : ) Thanks in advance, Madman (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's why it can't be dropped. You try to say "let's move along", but then you throw in a little uncivil comment about his editing style. So far, about 3 people agree with you. Nearly everyone else, thinks this is just an attack. So, it continues. But thanks for the diff for future purposes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMarlin (I rarely do). After reading the diffs and threads presented, I feel that Hrafn has been blasted with attacks from many fronts in order to "get rid of him". Shameful really. After a close look at the the contributions of Hrafn, I would be very hard pressed to offer or endorse any "sanctions" against him/her, and moreso, I would be supportive of sanctions against those that feel that chasing another collaborative editor away is a "good thing to do". Hrafn has done nothing, in my evaluation, other than promote an NPOV, encyclopedic, wikipedia. He is being attacked by POV pushers, and it would be an utter shame if they "win" and he retires. Keeper ǀ 76 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one engaged in this dispute has stated that chasing another editor away is a good thing to do. Hrafn decided himself to "retire" in the middle of a dispute, regarding his behaviour. I find it highly improper to try to use his supposed retirement as an argument since everyone can pull such a stunt to gain immediate sympathy.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine proposed reprimands and draconian restrictions on Hrafn's editing, with a conclusion that if he persisted in editing in accordance with policy, she "would like to see him blocked" from the areas that interest her.[19] Looks like chasing another editor away, as far as I'm concerned. Too many valued editors have given up due to the stress created by civil POV pushing, and it's all too likely that Hrafn is suffering from that stress. Your cynical failure to assume good faith is very disappointing. Whether Hrafn has been driven away or not, both Catherine and myself consider that there is an important underlying principle that must be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that I believed Hrafn to have retired in order to gain sympathy - but that retirement shouldn't be used as an argument because it can be used by anyone to gain sympathy. Using the fact that he has retired or threatened with retiring as an argument to show how evil his accusers are only promotes melodrama, but says nothing about the important underlying principles. I can't say your failure to assume good faith before you accuse me of not assuming good faith shocks me, but really you should try to read the words I write instead of those you believe I write, that eases communication.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about a cooling off period of, say, 1 week? Certainly we could all agree on that. Madman (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about "... cooling off -- period."

AFAICT, no rules have been unambiguously broken by anyone here. If anything is plain to me personally here, it's that WP imitates life in some visible ways (maybe life in a high-school cafeteria at times, but life nonetheless-- if y'all will pardon my brief little outburst here). For those of us who care more about the broader objective of continuing to write and edit interactively and encyclopedically about topics of their respective interest than we do about interpersonal disagreement, I humbly suggest that we'all continue to try to follow the rules and try to continue to write and edit, both encyclopedically and interactively, applying to the best possible extent WP's content policies. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with OrangeMarlin on this occasion, something I almost never do. My own investigation of the situation seems to bear out very much what Keeper is saying above. Orderinchaos 05:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

<proposal> Firstly, my belief is that Catherineyronwode's been acting in good faith, and her reluctance to completely back down is understandable, but she brought this dispute to ANI and several experienced editors including admins, having looked at her case in detail, have dismissed it. Keeper76 sums up the situation very well in the post at 23:03, 16 September, and note particularly that while Catherine has no good case to take to RfC, sanctions could be pursued against her and her allies. Her "Desired outcome", which appears to be designed to drive Hrafn away, proposed severe restrictions on Hrafn's editing, and a conclusion that if Hrafn persisted in his entirely proper work of removing inadequately sourced information, she "would like to see him blocked from editing any pages that fall in the New Thought or Religion categories, and possibly other religion-versus-science categories as well."[20] These draconian proposals are completely unacceptable, as is her failure to assume good faith, leading to Wikistalking, personal attacks on his motives and integrity, and poisoning the well demonstrated on article talk pages such asthis example. Such harassment has to stop. However, I've no wish to inhibit her constructive editing, and will welcome her continued involvement in these areas on the basis that in practice she has to accept policies as they are, and if Hrafn or any other editor properly deletes unsupported information or tags inadequately referenced articles for deletion, she is welcome to discuss it courteously, and do her best to find reliable third-party sources which can be agreed as supporting the section or article. I've suggested to Hrafn that on this basis I'd be content to see the case closed, subject to sanctions being pursued if this was treated as a "truce" and hostilities revived as Madman's comments seem to threaten. Hrafn has not yet responded to my email showing him a draft of this proposal, but in my opinion it should be satisfactory if this is taken as resolving the dispute unless Catherine objects. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I really must object to the characterisation of my posting as a "threat" (you) or as "uncivil" (OrangeMarlin). I simply suggested that this matter -- the matter regarding Hrafn's editing style -- should be dropped because it's a moot point. And then I said that we can all discuss it again if it ever becomes unmoot -- "When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this".

Jeez, guys, ease up here. Madman (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please all AGF and consider this resolved? Unless, as dave says, CY objects. But other than that hopefully unlikely possibility, I'm sure we all have better things to do and I suspect the heat that has been generated has been accompanied by some misunderstandings. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've well established that if Hrafn returns and resumes his former editing style in the same subject areas, he will be working in proper accordance with policy. Discussing that again seems completely unnecessary to me, though I'm willing to accept that it wasn't intended as a threat. Of course incivility on the part of any of those involved in this case can be taken up on talk pages and, if unresolved, dealt with through normal dispute resolution processes. Hope that clarifies things. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Are y'all still accepting endorsements? Hrafn scares me. He's smart, knows wikipedia and it's policies, his grasp of the creation-evolution controversy sources is impressive. And he's abrupt, abrasive, borderline rude in many cases, but in the many occasions I have had to work with and disagree with him, I've never seen anything that mentally flagged him as one of those editors to end up blocked. For wikipedia to lose him as an editor because of another editor who apparently can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the basic policies and instructions is pretty shitty in my mind. I'm going to go beg Hrafn to come back now. Good editors who source, make MOS changes, and are willing to work long and hard in difficult areas should be supported. Bad editors should learn the policies, or leave. Why is it the reverse? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sad outcome

This statement indicates clearly that Hrafn has retired, and gives very good reasons for doing so. Sadly, civil POV pushing is very effective at driving away good editors working in difficult areas. Hrafn gives some suggestions for ways to improve dealing with the huge amount of articles and material lacking reliable sources or confirmation of notability. This place is addictive enough that he may return a bit eventually, but recent trends towards valuing perceived civility over good quality article content and power struggles coordinated on other sites make it more likely that there will be more instances of good editors leaving, in my opinion. A sad day. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, but I think that the civility policies on this site should be more or less viewed as fouls are in basketball. I mean yeah, people here obviously employ the civility policies tactically, like a coach will ask a less capable but still effective defensive guard to try to draw personal fouls from better players on the opposing team in order to gradually shut down their offensive weapons, but the response when fouls are called should not be to complain to the refs about it, which in basketball would immediately lead to more penalties being called on the offending player, but to step your game up... and also employ civility rules tactically. The civility rules are part of the editing environment here, and can be applied by any side in a conflict. If someone leaves on account of civility violations, yeah you can say whoever took their fouls advanced their POV position, but that's a part of the game. Don't hate the player. Amerique^dialectics 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem isn't the pov pushers, who will always be with us, but arbcom decisions that appear to put civility to pov pushers at a higher premium than improving article content. It's a complex problem, and undoubtedly there is a wide spectrum of views on this difficult issue. . dave souza, talk 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That statement says that he thinks Wikipedia would be improved by creating a bot that automatically tags and deletes articles just because the bot does not see sources and no one has it on a list that they monitor. People like that need to create another site and import the best 10% of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia in the process of being built. How can you build this encyclopedia if you do such things? Stuff is added by unpaid volunteers. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. Adding sources was not even done at all in the early years. How about a bot that searches for a lack of cites and searches the web and automatically adds sites that are highly probable to be good sources for claims in the article? It would be better to mindlessly add than to mindlessly delete. But how about if we act thoughtful, caring, and careful instead? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm imagining it, there used to be a tool that listed non-stub articles with no references and less than two external links. It was really useful, because practically every article it picked up you could do something with - either improve it, or delete it :) Though it'll probably need tweaking now, because a lot of the automatically generated articles on localities and various scientific areas have only one reference. Black Kite 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a bot would have to be subject to significant human intervention to avoid problems, but the quality of the encyclopedia could be improved by a way of flagging up articles for attention then, after a suitable interval, deleting articles if no-one could be bothered with finding references. Similarly, if there's one source it could be listed for improvement, but would be a lesser priority for deletion. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, one option might be a bot that tagged articles as being in line for deletion, then after a few weeks automatically prodded the article for deletion if no references had been added. That way the decision on deletion would remain under control of an admin with a responsibility to be reasonable. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) – checks source, indeed that's what Hrafn has proposed. Not so daft. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I could buy into a project that called for all articles to have at least one source within say three years. Anything that sets too ambitious a goal will be responded to with people adding poor sources that are easy to find rather than well thought out sources. For example, all the unsourced math articles could be sourced with university text book cites that do not include a page number. The key is that deleting claims needs to be a thoughtful process and not a mechanical one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The deletionists would think they had died and gone to wikipedia heaven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As rather a keepist, I still fully respect WP:V and regard a request for citations or a deletion discussion as a wake-up call to hunt for sources, even if it's an article I've only just come across. The greater problem is articles for which reliable sources can't be found, which exist purely as a way of giving publicity to the self-publications of people or organisations that no-one else finds notable. If those few editors dedicated enough to tackle this problem keep being driven off, as happened to Hrafn, this project will increasingly boast an unrivalled collection of cruft in complete defiance of policies. Our choice, I guess. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I read as much of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis as I could (in about three bites, since it violates WP:TLDR). It seems to me that there are two supposed problems in evidence. Problem A is proponents of fringe subjects complaining that their subjects are always measured against mainstream rationalist objectivist criteria. Problem B is that they keep arguing this endlessly however often they are told that what they want violates core policy (WP:NPOV); in some cases they try to change core policy to allow what they want, but usually they simply keep on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it until somebody snaps. So, when are we going to do something about the real problem here which is civil POV-pushing and the practical impossibility of getting obsessives to STFU? Guy (Help!) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Guy, we've gone in the opposite direction. The exemplary lesson has been set that admins can be desysopped for blocking voluble pov-pushers if the admin has edited in the same area, as the pov pusher might conceivably turn into a good editor. Increasingly, we just have to be patient with these pov pushers and it's a question of who's more persistent. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guardedly hopeful that the Wikipedia:General sanctions remedies will help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with POV pushers, I would counter with short but aggressive editing moves, coupled with voluminous but civil talk page arguments of my own, and basically, if I wanted to, try to draw them into committing civility violations in counteracting me, but i haven't had time for this recently. Amerique^dialectics 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That could be a fair description of what happened here over quite a long period. Cat then made a legal threat and quickly followed that by announcing a subpage with an ANI proposal she'd been preparing. An experienced mediator disagreed with my proposal that it should be deleted as an attack page and agreed with Cat that it was a suitable issue for ANI. In my opinion the statement she posted here is indeed a civility violation, but for whatever reason Hrafn announced his retirement about the time that it was posted. Could be the build up of stress, but I'm not in a position to know. Not everyone can cope with the method you suggest. . dave souza, talk 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On review, it's worth clarifying that the process occurred, but in my opinion Hrafn wasn't trying to draw them into civility violations, and indeed was having difficulty in remaining polite himself. There was also incivility from Cat, and instances of pots calling kettles black. And indeed doing that deliberately would amount to baiting, and in my opinion would be rather incivil. If anything, it would seem that Hrafn was rising to the bait of continued pestering. . dave souza, talk 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From someone who was indef blocked (then unblocked) for using language that would make your hair curl, I don't agree that drawing someone into committing civility violations is the right way to go about it. Are there not rules against that? Anyway, after reading this thread, I don't envy any of you in trying to sort this out. Who would want to be an admin! not me, I'll just dawdle along as I am. Jack forbes (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize. I can't edit Wikipedia and have time to engage civil POV pushers myself, so for me it's a trade off. Do I want to get into a low intensity but protracted, long-term conflict with some nut in project-space areas or do i just want to edit the encyclopedia in relative peace? It is a question of who is more persistent, and more able to use rhetoric for their own purposes or against another person, a la Mark Antony in Julius Caesar, but still, if you have to, voluntarily or involuntarily, step aside from a conflict as a result of having shown anger or incivility, the tactics have worked. this is a consequence of how any rules-bound group activity is. Amerique^dialectics 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison." the comparison of incivility is a fruitless task--every one thinks what they did was justified by what came before, and the cycle of retaliation continues. Among the wisest Wikipedia rules is the one in NPA that previous incivility is no excuse. If anything, the longer one is here and the better editor one is, the less one should need to resort to abuse in order to make a proper point. As for requiring sources, this can be done disruptively or non-disruptively. Targeting bad articles is one thing, targeting articles on a subject is another, and can look very much like trying to destroy the articles about things and groups one does not like. Extensive negative work, though justifiable in each individual instance, can still be disruptive. DGG (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceptive. Everyone works in subject areas, and links mean that one article leads to another. An interlinked tangle of articles with no reliable sources and no evidence of notability of the fringe subjects is a proper subject for clean-up by a conscientious editor. As for targeting, it should be noted that Cat openly Wikistalked Hrafn to an article which he had previously worked on, made allegations about him, added unsourced material and edit warred about it.[21] Pretty disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to word it so I would not specifically be defending her. I am aware of the stuff above. But even someone who acts like that at times can get something right. DGG (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it time, Dave, to just quiet down about Cat? It's not becoming to an admin to be beating the drum against her on a daily basis. Madman (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• A further selection of Dave souza's negative comments on Catherineyronwode can be found further down this page [22]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything further to be said, Malcolm, so let's just let this and the other thread go. Madman (talk)

Summing up

As has been agreed by several admins, Catherine has to stop using harassment in pursuit of her objectives. These objectives are summarised in her Desired outcome under the hat in this section

(1) "need for establishing consensus before making deletions and redircts... to use the "Sources needed" template at the top of a page rather than make undiscussed cuts, deletions, or redirects." – this directly contradicts WP:V, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Policy does say that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." That's presented as an option, not a precondition, and WP:BOLD applies.

(2) Asks for time so that "qualified editors can work on the pages, to bring them up to general WP:IMPERFECT guidelines at worst, and up to better standards if time permits. That's a link to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Perfection is not required, apparently in the hope that it can be used to override core content policies. Not in my opinion, and I'll review that policy to see if clarification is required.

(3) Essentially calls for a topic ban from "the New Thought or Religion categories, and possibly other religion-versus-science categories as well" for editors who persist in cleaning up articles in those areas in accordance with policies. A non-starter.

As stated previously, she is welcome to continue her constructive editing and involvement in these areas on the basis that in practice she has to accept policies as they are, and if Hrafn or any other editor properly deletes unsupported information or tags inadequately referenced articles for deletion, she is welcome to discuss it courteously, and do her best to find reliable third-party sources which can be agreed as supporting the section or article. Unfortunately, Madman and Cat apparently feel "that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." which can be read as implying "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it".[23] If editors want to see policies changed, they can discuss proposals at policy talk pages. While such drastic changes are unlikely to gain consensus, discussions there are more likely to succeed than Cat's husband's tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump,[24] and similarly large and impenetrable proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy. Looks like POV-pushing to me, others are welcome to read these linked posts. Catherine and supporters will no doubt continue with this campaign. . dave souza, talk 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dave souza, I want to protest your even attempting to summarize this dispute. The problem is the long list of unacceptably negative things you have said about Catherineyronwode makes it clear that you are not neutral, but an active participant on one side of the issue. If you can not remember what I am referring to; I can, if you want, put together the diffs. Let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, Malcolm. And I repeat: Isn't it time, Dave, to just quiet down about Cat? It's not becoming to an admin to be beating the drum against her on a daily basis. Madman (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See my post at Dispute and legal threat on Cat's page at 12:33, 6 September. Hrafn asked me to look into the disagreements, and I've never said otherwise. Admittedly i prefer Wikipedia policies to the changed policies Cat and Self-ref seem to be proposing. Discussions are on this page to be examined by uninvolved admins, and that has been done. Feel free to provide more evidence if you wish, I'm content to leave things as stated above. . . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza, I think this excerpt from what you wrote in your "Summing up" makes it clear why you should not be the one summing up this discussion:

While such drastic changes are unlikely to gain consensus, discussions there are more likely to succeed than Cat's husband's tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump,[25] and similarly large and impenetrable proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy. Looks like POV-pushing to me, others are welcome to read these linked posts. Catherine and supporters will no doubt continue with this campaign.

To exlpain:

1. My understanding that "POV pushing",such as you ascribe to Catherineyronwode, actually applies to material included in articles, and not to opinions expressed in the Village Pump, on article talk pages or user talk pages. It is beyond my comprehension why you would want to silence discussion in exactly those places meant for discussion.
2. Your characterization of user self-ref's (Catherineyronwode's husband) written views as "screeds" (which is defined as " a ranting piece of writing"), and "impenetrable" is uncivil, and strongly suggests that you are predisposed to judge them negatively.
3. Because of 1. and 2., I would appreciate your withdrawing your summery.

I would also like to make clear that I am not, as you seem to imply above, a "supporter" of Catherineyronwode, nor of any changes to Wikipedia she may favor. I have engaged in this discussion because I think she is being treated unfairly, and for no other reason. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I consider that this discussion has run its course. The issue has been resolved. User:Pigsonthewing has been unblocked having agreed not to have the comments on his userpage. Any further concerns about his contributions should be raised as a new discussion. Adambro (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Wikipedia way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? Viridae^Talk 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren ^(talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Wikipedia is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Wikipedia just aren't a good fit. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I struck it out. Locke cole should be checkusered as a sock. Such a bizarrely trivial point becomes the means to dismiss my entire comment in the same trolling style ANDY, aka Pigsonthewing, is known for. It is clear to me that he couldn't debate my point on the facts, so sought to discredit via trvial distractions. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:RFCU is that way ←. And I'm sorry, but I take personal attacks seriously, as does the rest of the wiki last time I checked. Don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Wikipedia in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae^Talk 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Me, I am a Pink Floyd fan. Pigs (Three Different Ones) is a track on Animals (album), and they include references to "Pigs on the Wing" elsewhere I think. The lyrics to "Pigs on the wing" start Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are. Anyone who doesn't want to get caught up in that baggage has chosen the wrong username! Guy (Help!) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Love Animals! Though The Wall and Wish you were here bump it out of booth first and second place. Viridae^Talk 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The system for reading location data in an article and showing these multiple points on a Google map was first introduced on Wikipedia by Andy Mabbett. Para became involved and changed things around later because he objected to the way Andy was embedding microformats into the data. --CBD 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading location data has nothing to do with Microformats per se. The coordinate readout was pioneered by de:User:Stefan Kuehn and de:User:Kolossos. --Dschwen 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. [[26]] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Wikipedia doesn't need him. Wikipedia doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What a depressing view. We get a contributor back, who is 99% a benefit to the encyclopedia. It's the 1% that's the problem, and unless he is willing to accede to the community's norms, he isn't going to be unblocked. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (tapping feet impatiently...) He's banned till he accedes to the community norms - so when he does, someone can inform the community again. So why is this discussion still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you might not realise...

Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's not an old usenet regular, he's an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just "Andy Mabbett". It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching. His negative reputation is clearly quite something. We're not going to change this guy, we really aren't...Moreschi (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.

Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Sorry, but the troll accusation isn't something that I can leave unchallenged. Trolls set out with the sole purpose of damaging things, and no matter what you think of Andy's conduct, I don't believe that you can fairly characterise him in this way. Andy is tenacious, and single minded. He can probably be fairly accused of not always seeing the bigger picture, in which you sometimes have to accept less than you want out of a situation, for the greater good. However, I am entirely satisfied that Andy is not here with any ulterior motive of damaging Wikipedia.

Andy is talking to people, and is currently blocked, so there is no emergency that requires a rushed decision. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update, POTW Unblocked without consensus or discussion

Sorry, to unarchive this, but I just wanted to call the community's attention to the fact that User:Adambro, either unaware of this discussion, or completely ignoring the consensus in this discussion, has decided to unblock POTW, and has decided to castigate me on the block. I explicity will not wheel war this block, but this action needs to be scrutinized. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" (adding statement for Viridae per his request on my talk page [27] SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

• Ugh, horrible idea. Poor unblock against consensus. POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whilst it's preferable to see a user put previous negative incidents behind them and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia rather than being blocked, one has to question whether actively encouraging visitors to his user page to research the history of this conflict, and strongly iterating that he is only complying with the requests to cease adding the information under duress indicates that Pigsonthewing has really moved past the issues that led to this block in the first place. -- Codeine (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but your block was bad. You were previously involved in the dispute over his edits to his user page over a year ago, and it seems like you're just recycling that problem now that his year long block has expired. As I said before, and as I'll say again now, better to have someone previously uninvolved look at this rather than someone who may be (possibly) injecting a little bias in to their decisions.

I'll also note that what you call consensus I call "a small collection of editors, some with prior history with Andy". As you can see on his talk page, Andy has said he wouldn't continue the behavior that caused you to (erroneously) block him. And as a final note for anyone considering reblocking him: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As he's indicated he wouldn't engage in the behavior that was allegedly wrong, there's no need for him to be blocked (there's no gain for the encyclopedia if he's blocked again). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was explicitly endorsed by the consensus here. You may think its bad.. doesn't mean it was, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumping your chest and screaming "I had consensus, I had consensus!" doesn't mean you actually did. You didn't. You were previously involved in the year old issue, it was a bad block from start to finish. I'll also note that you ignored everything else I said, specifically the bits about punitive vs. preventative blocks. Your block prevented nothing and did nothing for the encyclopedia and was a gross lapse of judgment (given your prior involvement). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the dramatic phrasing of "gross lapse of judgement", which I disagree with, I see you and I had independently come to the same assessment. Andy and I once had a massive altercation on a template talk page, although strangely, after that was over, while he was difficult/uncompromising to deal with, he was never incivil to me again and we cooperated on a few minor tasks. I see users who push POV or bodge references as being far more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than he will ever be. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a year old issue that went to arbcom and landed him with his second year long ban - and you are having a go at Foz because he blocked him for continuing a grudge that is years old straight after coming off a ban that he got as a result of that dispute? Sorry but admins dealign wih user's bad behaviour does not make them "involved in a dispute". Further more the consensus there was pretty clear. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had no authority to override the consensus building that occurred here and exercised poor judgement. This discussion was closed under the terms that Pigsonthewing would remain indefinitely blocked until he agreed to stop pursuing old feuds [28] - Adambro neither discussed the prospect of whether the community is satisfied with unblocking the user, nor did he even inform the community of his action. If there are other occasions where this administrator has exercised this sort of poor judgement, then this would need to be taken further and desysopping would certainly need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• A terrible unblock, and one that deserves further review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• He had as much authority as SirFozzie did in blocking Andy in the first place (and at least Adambro doesn't seem to have any prior involvement, as SirFozzie does). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also it's a bedrock principle that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I'm honestly failing to see the preventative value. If he started behaving the way he did before his last ArbCom block, I'd support an indefinite ban. But he actually hasn't, he's been somewhat easier to deal with this time around and I think one *can* overlook minor issues so long as they stay behind the containment lines. Orderinchaos 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the consensus is to keep the guy blocked - then one ignorant admin comes along and unblocks him - a "tyranny of the minority", as the others wring their hands and cry, "Oh, what shall we do? What shall we do?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at the limit of what *I* can do.. the only next step I can see is ArbCom (where IF I took it there, which I won't.. and IF it got accepted), would be 30 days of drama and hassle, before probably yet another year long ban.. or to RfC, where I would get the 30 days of drama and hassle, and absolutely nothing binding would come out of it, to boot.

And I'm really less then impressed by Adambro logging in, unblocking/unprotecting Andy, and then logging out without discussing it anywhere, or even sticking around to help with the autoblock.

I do note that Andy has at least partially pleged to not add the section any more.. so I would have been pleased if he just said "Ok, I disagree with you, but I will not bring up Leonig any further".. I'm just afraid that it's left things open for interpertation, which means.. you guessed it.. MORE drama! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Drama you need not concern yourself with in your capacity as administrator/sysop. If you have a potential problem with Andy you should report it here on AN/I and let another uninvolved admin/sysop deal with it, not yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but have been following the discussion here and on Andy's talk page, and have to say that I'm rather depressed by the entire business. I should declare that my editing interests have on occasions overlapped with Andy's, primarily on UK railways and West Midlands-related articles; I've never personally had any difficulty in dealing with him, but of course I'm aware that others have had (one would have to be in cloud-cuckoo land to be unaware of it).

Now, I don't particularly care if Andy has a grudge against another editor or not, and don't particularly care about the notice on his user page that seems to have precipitated all of this. I personally wouldn't put such a notice on my own user page, but that's a personal decision. Also, (IMHO anyway) the offending notice doesn't seem especially, well, offensive (at least on the surface); let's face it: it could be a hell of a lot worse.

It seems that this whole sorry incident was precipitated by SirFozzie taking it upon himself to remove it from Andy's user page [29], without even remarking on it on the talk page (see the talk page history: SirFozzie made no edits to it when he edited the user page). As far as I was aware, it is an unwritten rule on Wikipedia that editors don't unilaterally edit others' user pages; instead you make polite requests on their user talk page and ask them to remove it themselves. (The request made by Neil/Fish&Karate [30] would have been a much better place to start.) With this in mind, it seems hard to disagree with Andy's claim that his user page "is censored by other editors". I'm afraid that it appears to me that SirFozzie has displayed incredibly poor judgement by re-igniting this issue.

It's also just plain common sense not to antagonise someone who you know for a fact will rise to the bait; given the "history" between Andy and various others editors, it's like a red rag to a bull. Similarly, when you know that a user objects to something (e.g. Andy's dislike of being referred to as "Pigs"), it's common sense not to keep doing it!

I should also point out that since the unblock Andy has removed the offending notice from his user page, and has also been editing productively as well as interacting with the community in an acceptable manner (see Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing). So at present there seems no reason to re-block. Let's just leave the matter closed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin - but I've seen a lot of Andy Mabbett's activity on WP and I wouldn't characterize him as a productive editor. Most of his energy has gone into warring. This is what turns him on. That is why he is here. Previous bans have only reinforced his behaviour by making him more bitter. IMO, he has once again been given licence to game ANI and pit his wits against those involved. The activity on his user page was a classical example of brinkmanship, with Andy walking a narrow line between cooperating and defying those involved, exploiting the scruples of his opponents and trying (in this case successfully) to divide them. The result of all this is a complete waste of everybody's time. We'll have another incident in a week, or a month's time, and the whole thing will be repeated until, and unless, common sense prevails and we see a complete and final ban on this man. --Kleinzach 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm seeing positive contributions, such as this, and this and this. It is possible that this is only temporary, but it seems part of the message is getting across. In general, I agree with RFBailey's assessment of the situation above. I also think that a reblock or ArbCom case would be excessive drama. Maybe discuss Adambro's action separately from the discussion on Andy/POTW? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only would I support reverting the unblock, thus reinstating the community endorsed user ban, but I'd further support a de-buttoning of Adambro for his obviously bad faith unblock. His actions are like coming into a mexican standoff, firing one round into the air, and running from the firefight, only with bullets as a metaphor for drama. Unless he rapidly provides some incredible reasoning, he should surrender his toolkit. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Were this up to me and nobody else, I would leave Andy/POTW unblocked, until and unless he posts any further rubbish about his old feuds. I would have done this in the first place, but unlike Adambro, didn't feel comfortable ignoring the rest of the community's less progressive views. Andy is now contributing well. He is very, very aware he is on thin ice. If he does post any further rubbish, then he will be indefinitely blocked, and I would imagine it would stick. I would be inclined to (why do I keep saying this and why does nobody do so) let the matter drop. fish&karate 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I left the unblocking admin a note suggesting he leave an explanation here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Adambro does have 'previous' with Mabbett - see eg Talk:Tinsley Viaduct and Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, both illustrative of the pre-reformed-Mabbett technique in 2007 – so is not 'uninvolved'. I too think that Adambro should return the tools. Moreover Mig requested, politely, the removal of the stalker para on 30 Jan 07 and 11 March 07. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes I have dealt with Andy a good while ago but don't consider this to have any impact on my basis for unblocking. Good morning all. Well there's a lot to comment on there but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary dealing with this issue. The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. I see a few calls for my admin rights to be removed and this doesn't surprise me. It has been said that I shouldn't simply appear and unblock Andy having not been involved in all the discussions, however, I would suggest this puts me in a good position to take a broader view of this situation. I am under no doubts that Andy's poor behaviour over the years has caused him to have a good number of enemies and as such I have to treat a lot of the comments with a great deal of caution. I don't know who where has developed a dislike to Andy which may influence their thinking. It has been suggested that there is consensus for him to be blocked but I don't think it is really clear and anyhow, I'll happily ignore all rules if I think it benefits the project. By unblocking Andy what I am trying to achieve is for him to be able to return to the positive work he's being trying to do and for the many others who have been involved to get back to doing something constructive themselves. Far too much time has been wasted with this debate and I don't think it is really Andy to blame for this. Whilst is has been said that Andy has returned from his ban to continue a vendetta against Leonig, I think the truth here is probably more than Andy has returned and there are others waiting for him whole hold their own grudges against him. Ultimately, whilst I don't consider this text about Leonig to have ever been appropriate, it is very questionable as to whether it actually violates any policy. I would urge all that have been involved in this issue to take a step back and consider the value of continuing these discussions. There are much more useful things that people, including Andy and myself, can be getting on with and so don't expect me to be commenting on this much. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. This was my point all along. I also think the effort to try and make this look like a COI case for Adambro hasn't got legs. Orderinchaos 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The rationale/merits for wanting to or actually unblocking does not override the need to comply with norms. Indeed, it appears that certain admins haven't learnt from the Sarah Palin ArbCom case that is running currently. If Adambro is incapable of acknowledging the issue with the series of actions he took on this matter, then one does have to wonder why an RFC has not been opened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where complying with the norms would cause more disruption than not doing then I'll happily ignore the norms as I've said. You say in your edit summary that "he doesn't get it", presumably "he" is me. In fact I think I get this perfectly well, there are a lot of editors it would seem who are wanting to get Andy off Wikipedia by any means and attempting to blow this issue out of all reasonable proportions seems to demonstrate this. I have no intention of allowing Andy to be forced out of the project due to grudges that a number have against him but would have no problem with him being further banned or blocked if he further causes problems to the project. However, in this situation I am quite clear that it isn't him that is causing the problem, it is others who are looking for any opportunity to get rid of him, what it is that Andy is being accused of here is actually extremely minor and does not merit all the debate that has gone on. The only reason why editors are prepared to spend so much time on this is to try and make it bigger than it actually is. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed now, Andy can continue to edit and if there are any further problems then these can be discussed. Whilst I would prefer to use my time on Wikipedia to edit articles, I will however vigorously defend Andy's editing privileges from those who simply don't like him and attempt to generate further controversy around him. I would strongly warn any user from taking part in such a campaign. I would encourage all to take time to cool off and go and do some proper constructive work on the project as I intend to do. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are in no position to "warn" us that our "campaign" is nothing more than a "grudge." You blindly reverted a disruptive editor that you have prior history with. That's a huge no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if his block was reinstated, and this case taken further to evaluate your administrative tools -- and your abuse (of). seicer | talk | contribs 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would not surprise me if I become a target of this campaign to rid Wikipedia of Andy but I am big and ugly enough to stand up for myself. I have acted in good faith in unblocking Andy in my attempts to minimise the ongoing disruption and have taken the time to carefully explain why I took my decision to do so. I would be very surprised if any attempt to remove my admin rights would be successful therefore. I can warn people about their behaviour as I see fit and my previous dealings with Andy have been negligible but enough for me to know and understand what is going on here. If you choose to dismiss my actions as inappropriate due to these previous dealings then could I perhaps ask you to explain what your status regarding Andy is? Adambro (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Completely uninvolved outside of the comments posed here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (In reply to Adambro's comment at 11:38) - Although I hope you did get it, to put it bluntly, it's very clear that you don't (particularly from that comment). I consider the controversy is around you and caused by you (rather than by POTV), at least in this section. First, you inappropriately invoke WP:IAR as a justification for your series of actions, then you come here casting aspersions that the editors here are trying rid Andy off the project to justify your involvement, and then indicate that you will use Wikipedia as a battleground against editors who are in a 'campaign' (while refusing to listen to the criticism you receive from your peers)? This level of rhetoric, judgement and conduct is incompatible with the status of an administrator, and indeed, needs to be addressed promptly. It is clear an RFC is going to do nothing as he still won't 'get it', nor will he listen to the community - this needs to go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to get drawn into all the rhetoric that is being banded about here, it's hard to see how statements such as "POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned" (Moreschi, [31]) and "Ban PigsAndy now" (ThuranX, [32] [33]) are not part of some campaign to see Andy permanently banned. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gives appearances of a campaign? Possibly, and no problem with saying that if you're being specific about who or which comments seem to be doing so. Claiming as a matter of fact that there is a campaign or grudge by editors (in general)? It's not borne out of facts, and creates more heat than light. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this needs to go to ArbCom then you can go ahead and raise it there but I stand by my actions and my comments above, especially considering you've not really explained why my comments are wrong just stated that they are. Please keep me informed if you decide to raise this for discussion anywhere but beyond that I have no desire to continue taking part in this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  As I've noted below, I do hope you have a good think about the criticisms I and a couple of others left here, sometimes repeatedly in different ways so you understand - you should've given it more thought and gone about it differently. I don't intend on taking it to ArbCom personally at this point, but note: should I find a problem with your judgement again, then I will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Andy, but I have to say that I'm not seeing the consensus to ban that many are either saying or implying exists here. A majority, sure, but we need a lot more than a majority for someone to truly be banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in bad faith

SirFozzie, you explicitly said that if Pigsonthewing agreed not to repost about the dispute with Leonig Mig he should be unblocked. He did so. He was unblocked. Now you are screaming that this is against consensus. It was your own condition. The same condition was stated by Neil/Fish/Karate... and you supported his position. The stated condition for unblocking was met. What exactly then is the problem?

Ncmvocalist, you ALSO claimed to support efforts to get Andy to change his position. He did. He agreed not to repost the material. How is unblocking under the conditions YOU supported 'against consensus'?

ThuranX, you called for a RFCU to determine whether Locke Cole was Pigsonthewing. That's just too ridiculous to deserve any further comment.

Et cetera. The discussion above is littered with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, threats, intimidation, calls for desysoping for doing the very thing that the people making the calls had previously claimed THEY would do if the user would just concede to their demands, and other unpleasantness.

What we seem to have is a bunch of people who SAID they were willing to try to settle this through normal dispute resolution processes. Discuss... try to get the user to change their position... agree to make no reference to the past dispute. Very reasonable. Helping to dispel any concerns about possible bias in the earlier handling of discussion with the user and the block. But now... when the user has actually agreed to do what was demanded of them. Now suddenly we are seeing a different story. It doesn't look good. Not even a little. --CBD 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have is another Betacommand situation - that if a user is perceived as being "beneficial", he will be cut a lot of slack by selected admins, especially the ones who call him by his first name, as if he were their pal or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'Andy' happens to be shorter than 'Pigsonthewing'. Go figure. As to cutting people slack... I'd settle for a remote adherence to community standards. Things like civility, blocks not being punitive, assumption of good faith. No slacks required. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pigs" is just as short as "Andy" and is actually part of his user ID, despite his silly NPA complaint about it. And calling him by his first name (which is NOT part of his user ID), suggests a less-than-neutral stance on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... calling him 'Andy', as he requests, rather than 'Pigs', which he objects to, "suggests a less-than-neutral stance". To be 'neutral' we should all use the nickname which annoys him. Got it. --CBD 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A guy with 2 year-long blocks is in no position to be giving orders to other users. "Pigsonthewing" is his user ID, and that's what he should be called. If he really wants to be called "Andy", he's free to change his user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is normal custom and practice to address people by their usernames, if they use a different name in their signatures then the waters are muddied a bit. However, if the user in question is clear about what name they prefer to be addressed by, then deliberately going against that is likely to antagonise that person, whoever it is, be it me, Andy, or somebody else. Continually doing so could be seen to be disruptive. (For the record, I personally object to being called Bailey, even though it is "actually part of my user ID".) --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could go with 'Bail', 'Bug', and 'son'. That'd be friendly, right? Add in 'vocal' and 'icer' and you've got a party. :] --CBD 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, please refrain from misstating my position and read the discussion more carefully. I never once said that there was a consensus to unblock - I noted that the moment he accedes to community norms, someone should inform the community, or the moment there was a change, that's when the discussion is worth reopening. Your statement "It doesn't look good. Not even a little." is a perfect characterization of your poor judgement in creating this section in the manner in which you have, as well as what you're creating for yourself - a massive drama invitation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, because there was absolutely no 'drama invitation' involved in the cries for desysoping above. Pigsonthewing was blocked for trying to keep his comments about Leonig Mig. He subsequently agreed to stop. Ergo... he should be unblocked. The reason for blocking is gone. Blocks are preventive and this one was then irrelevant. SirFozzie should have removed the block himself. He had stated that he would. What we have here instead? Not remotely acceptable. If you are saying that you didn't mean for Pigsonthewing to be unblocked if/when he capitulated (though it still looks that way to me)... well, then you are merely arguing against policy. We should keep people indefinitely blocked even after they agree not to do the thing they were blocked for. Not a position I'd support. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with why certain administrators are desysopped, then indeed, it'd merely look like a drama invitation. Ordinarily, my position is that users should not be blocked any longer than necessary as it is the most restrictive remedy - this was not an ordinary case. It is not ordinary for a user to be fully banned, let alone twice, but then to come back and do the same thing again was precisely what had the community very concerned, and in the absence of the user stating that he won't do it again, an unblock wasn't even up for consideration. That is why the discussion became moot, and that is why Adambro felt the need to unblock without informing the community, and invoked WP:IAR (or norms) to justify his intentionally controversial action - he was fully aware that the community would only have an interest in discussing this after Andy took the first step. He could not put his own personal feelings, passions, agendas, assumptions of bad faith etc. aside in taking that action which indicates a major problem in his judgement. He should've (as a first resort) informed the community of his view that Andy seemed to be ready for an unblock. Adambro's prior involvement with the user was also another factor, and perhaps your own involvement is a factor worth considering, given what you're trying to do here. In any case, the manner in which you have responded is once again unhelpful and unbecoming of your status, and repeatedly misstating my position is something I don't respond to well at all, so I won't respond to you from this point on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conrad, I should point out that Andy never actually agreed to never posting the content again, so it's a little unfair to castigate people over that. I'm happy to assume he won't, and I hope that assumption proves correct. I am done commenting on this issue unless someone does something stupid (this could be either an admin blocking Andy again for no good reason, or Andy posting more ranty stuff about old feuds) - unless someone is going to file an RFC over Adambro for daring to apply common sense and judgement, this really should be done and dusted with. fish&karate 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider his statement just prior to the unblock, "Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response."[34], to be such an agreement. Do you see it differently? --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "nor any other", one could argue that this undertaking has already been violated. Hesperian 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that statement entirely - thanks for the heads up. In that case, never mind what I said - Adambro's unblock was completely appropriate, and all this complaining is ridiculous, frankly. Andy has agreed not to restore the material, that's what was required of him, he is accordingly unblocked. fish&karate 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm going to guess that some of the complainants missed it also. In which case this has been more of a 'rush to judgment' / 'assumption of bad faith' issue. Normally I'd expect people to have done their homework before calling for de-sysoping, but oversights happen. If they thought there had been no agreement to cease I can see where some of this hostility was coming from. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it wouldn't seem as completely unjustified as I found the complaints in light of that agreement. --CBD 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the link posted above, I apologize for my comments in relation to Adambro. While I supported the block in its original intent, I no longer do in part to the latest comments. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I personally no longer supported a block since he agreed and took that first step. My criticisms still stand, and I hope both admins have a good think about it, because should (I become aware that) something like this occurred again, then I know that I wouldn't leave it at this. There's also a relevant note above made at 1:21 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The note in question is an observation that the offending piece of text has been placed in a talk page archive [35]. Given that such an archive is meant as a record of all past posts on a user's talk page, and that this is actually a record of some posts that were made on his talk page on 19 August 2007 (and which were not present in any other archive), then they should presumably be in an archive. Whether the remarks were appropriate when they were originally posted is an entirely different question (the answer to which is probably that they were, at best, very ill-advised remarks). However, given that they were made, leaving them out could even be seen as trying to deny the fact that they were ever there (as one would have to search through page histories in order to find them). So this is where they belong, and I don't see why any sort of sanction needs to be made (before anyone suggests it).

Of course, having a notice on one's user page for all to see is a different matter entirely, but that hasn't happened. --RFBailey (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the text in question was in place on his talk page for over a year and nobody objected or removed it then. He archived his talk page... get over it. As to 'not leaving it at this' if something like this occurs again... that's just what we needed. More threats. Way to go. How dare anyone disagree with you. You make sure to take care of that if they ever do it again. Yeeesh. --CBD 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have been averted

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

This whole thread from the start is depressing. It's depressing that Andy/POTW felt the need to resurrect an old feud for no reason after a long block. It's depressing that people started a heated debate over the matter. It's depressing that so much confusion arose out of a missed comment and an unexplained unblock. It's even more depressing that some people are quick to call for Adambro's head and raise the spectre of Arbcom here. The most depressing part of it all is that just a smidge more effort in communicating our intentions could have prevented a lot of this ... Shereth 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good faith by those carrying the torches and pitchforks would have also gone a long ways in keeping this from exploding out of proportion. I'll concede that there could have been better communication, but the unnecessarily inflammatory comments after the unblock did nothing to improve the situation. As noted elsewhere, it's time to let this go and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

Yes, but that route often fails to gain the result one wishes. The IAR unblocker will never get reverted and the unblock rarely if ever leads to any removal of tools. It's not nice, but unfortunately it works. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aunt Entropy here. I have not looked into the Pigsonthewing issue in particular, but I know that these "lone wolf" unblocks are becoming increasingly common and never seem to help anything. They just turn conflicts into bigger conflicts. They also appear to ensure that anyone who has befriended even a single admin can be assured that they will never be blocked for a meaningful length of time, no matter what they do. We need to recognize undoing a block without discussion as the wheel-warring it is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of silly to make a broad generalized comment on unblocking over something this specific. The unblock in this particular instance was entirely warranted by the situation. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean it could have been discussed first? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what? He met the requirements set by many in this very discussion (that he would not reinsert the offending passage into his userpage) and an admin unblocked him. What's to discuss in that scenario? And how would further discussion mesh with the fact that blocks should always to be preventative, not punitive. Once he indicated he would obey the demands placed upon him, the need for a block disappeared. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent incidents

All this talk about incidents from last year may be interesting, but his recent "contributions", e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coord_needs_repair_(on_1844_pages) is just as much of concern. -- User:Docu

I see nothing of concern there other than a disagreement. A disagreement is not a cause for "concern" unless it escalates in to something more. BTW, you should link to your user page or user talk page in your signature. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing of concern. There is a disagreement of opinion between two people, that doesn't automatically mean one of them is wrong. Orderinchaos 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of concern. It means that a pair of year-long blocks have done nothing to instill any humility or civility in that guy. In short, he is unreformable, which was the argument presented earlier. It's not blockworthy, but it bears watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who believe they are always right; this is a necessary survival trait in many admins. Docu, please stop trying to get Andy blocked because he doesn't agree with you on a content issue. And please start signing your comments properly - particularly as an administrator, you should be making it easy for others to find your user page and talk page. fish&karate 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from WP:SIG that a link to your user or user talk page is required. If Docu refuses to comply, perhaps a block may be in order? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be seriously jumping the gun. WP:SIG is not policy. L'Aquatique[parlez] 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for side-tracking this thread, but if you need more samples for recent incidents, please check this edit. 13:53, 2008 September 20 -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2008 September 20 (UTC)

Recent incidents (2)

Thank you for side-tracking the previous thread, but if you need more samples for recent incidents, please check this edit. -- 14:23, 2008 September 20. -- User:Docu

This isn't a general discussion where you can raise whatever concerns you might have about Andy's edits, the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the issue of the comments on his userpage. This issue has now been resolved and your comments don't seem to be related to it. As such, if you concerns about Andy's edits which you consider should be discussed here on the Administrators' Noticeboard then please start a completely new section. Adambro (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is back from his block, and petty edit-warring in Jewish Internet Defense Force has resumed, mostly involving that user and Puttyschool (talk · contribs). The editing issues involved are minor, but there's ongoing drama from those two. They may both have violated 3RR, although that needs to be checked. This looks more like trolling for attention than a substantive difference over content.

I'd like to ask that both be banned from editing that particular article for a few weeks under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. They're both too focused on that one article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would say that both editors need a block, Puttyschool (talk · contribs) is the only one that has technically violated 3RR. Seeing as previous blocks failed to work, I think we need to look at alternatives such as banning the user per the arbitration case listed above. Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly broke any 3RR rules here, nor do I understand why trying to protect the article from various attempts to destroy it should call for me to be blocked from it. If people actually take the time to study my edits they can see my work is is neither "drama inducing" nor "petty." Furthermore, I am not interested in "edit warring." There have been multiple attempts to remove cited material, despite the fact that Putty had been warned by Malik Shabbaz that if he continued trying to edit out a particular piece of important cited material, that it would be "vandalism." There have also been great attempts by others to insert an off-topic narrative and change the language significantly. I believe calling for my "block" from the article is not necessary and I would invite any interested yet un-involved parties to look at it objectively and tell me any good reasons why that would make any sense. However, I'm happy to stay away from the article if other editors can be more "on top" of the aforementioned problems. I think at this moment, everything is fine. I'm not trying to get in there to make grandiose changes. I'm just trying to prevent them from happening, especially without any consensus or discussion first. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think this characterization is fair toward Einsteindonut. While some of his/her comments on the article's talk page have been a little sharp, he/she has not engaged in any edit-warring since the block expired. Please review the article's history.

John, Einsteindonut's edits to the article since the block have chiefly been to revert to the stable September 6 version that you suggested here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This tempest in a teapot has been going on for a month. Some action to quiet it down seems to be indicated. Diverting the two editors most narrowly focused on this article to other topics might be helpful. The two of them in opposition are just churning the article, not improving it. --John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Malik that action against ED at this stage would be distinctly premature. --Peter cohen (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) We also sould give a chance for the mentorship to work. I see that Michael is still active on ED's talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs), Do you believe that this edit by Est was a neutral edit, stating "According to the JIDF" as if they are a WP:RS that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." as if it is a fact, which means a final judgment on the group from the JIDF POV and the user MUST believe in this statement.
Please spend more time revising the article history, and tell me how do I violated 3RR according to your POV as stated above, specially that I requested external judgment by adding COI tag when I disagreed with Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) about this sentence, after only TWO reverts by him on my NEUTRAL edits; as I believed that this sentence "According to the JIDF" can’t be added except when the JIDF is writing this article not Wikipedian editors.
Also I’m requesting from admin Luna Santin (talk · contribs) to comment on this as he/she followed the article history from the day of creation.
Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) about my comment on the first AFD, which was "SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP" I think this was on this old edit of the article, till now I don’t know how this edit received votes on keeping it.
Regards« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Puttyschool, the use of "According to ...." does not imply any degree of authority on the part of whomever is cited. Furthermore, "According to ..." is the proper grammatical construct for giving explicit attribution, it is neutral, and it is preferable over the use of "claim" which is a word to avoid. If I may, both your statement about the phrase "according to ..." and Einsteindonut's statement about your endorsement of the article's speedy deletion are not legitimate grievances against one another nor are they proof of malicious or improper editing. I cannot speak to all of Einsteindonut's contributions to the article, however this particular edit is consistent with Wikipedia style and policy. Similarly, it is perfectly legitimate for you to support the page's deletion; we wouldn't vote on such issues if there were only one way to legitimately vote. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in my "talk" area, it's not how he voted, it was his explanation as it showed a clear problem with the JIDF itself. You're right in that it is legitimate to vote however he wishes to vote. I just think that it is telling when one looks at his explanation there and then looks at his edits to the JIDF article. It is obvious he has been trying to take out key information and well-cited facts from the beginning. He has also made plenty of grammatical errors and added some questionable things as well. It's obviously a controversial organization and I feel that other Wikipedia editors should try to prevent this type of unproductive "work" which is all I have been trying to do. All of my edits lately were discussed in the talk section before I made them and most of them are merely trying to keep important, well-cited material in the thing. One minute putty had an issue with the word "claims" the next minute he is putting it back in. It's all just a game to him since he does not like the JIDF in general and does not feel that the article should even be here. If other editors don't try to defend it from this type of hostile editing, then maybe it shouldn't be here. I certainly can't watch it every minute, but if one looks at what happened while I was blocked, it's very clear someone has to, and I appreciate the efforts of those who did what they could do to help. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) a)Can you explain why you reverted the article and undid all editors changes that were made while you were blocked what was wrong with this edit? Especially the new editors gave us some fresh air b) “According to the JIDF” and “According to the JIDF Calims”, the deference is very clear to all readers and they can decide which one is a NPOV c) Anyone who have time to follow the article history can determine the editors of conflict of interest. d) Who gave you the right to remove my {{COI}} tag that I added to request external judgment e) Can you please put aside your original researches and give us examples to show your point of view. f) Wikipedia is concerned only with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and this page is not a mirrored site. g) remember the value of time differs from one editor to another, so please summarize. « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool, (b) "According to the JIDF claims" makes no sense in English unless the JIDF has made a legal claim. This was already explained to you. (d) When you add a "COI" tag you're supposed to explain why on the article's Talk page, something you still haven't done (at least not in plain English). Insinuations and smilies aren't sufficient reasons to keep a "COI" tag on an article. If Einsteindonut hadn't removed the tag, I would have. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason was very clear in the comment section also I forwarded the COI section in talk page to follow this AN/I thread in order to save time, Smiles were not about the COI tag, But about preventing editors from further reading(investigation) by providing wrong final conclusion, (don't smile if you don't want).
your reason for removing the COI tag, is not acceptable, a third party not you nor ED can remove it
The most important point is point (a) « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article is nothing but trouble. The JIDF or some of its members will find themselves in the headlines one day (probably after the group itself has imploded), but they're laughably non-notable at the moment. In the meantime, much, much more significant groups (such as JewsAgainstZionism) have their non-bothersome articles systematically AfD'd. That's what needs to happen here. PR^talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But this article survived AfD twice already, and seems to be just barely over the threshold for WP:ORG notability. Their press coverage, though, all stems from one incident, and it's scrolled off Google News. In other petty drama, some new vandal account tried to move the article to a junk name, ClueBot dealt with the problem, and the account involved was routinely blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte still edit-warring on Harvey Milk and disrupting talkpage

Resolved

 – parties have reached a compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is an {{SPA}} who only edits articles on Jim Jones and Jones' Peoples Temple, they have single-handedly disrupted the Harvey Milk article for over three months going on four with the only purpose of edit-warring to re-insert scandalous, POV and what a growing consensus experienced editors view as sythesized and OR content inflating a connection of Milk to Jones.
An earlier RfC to resolve this was corrupted by {{SPA}} !votes and the current article talkpage and archives (2, 3, 4) show their propensity of verbosity to overwhelm those who disagree with them. I sought other eyes on this board (seen here) which sadly resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease them. They have also inserted similar content on other biographies (some BLP) to inflate this contents importance to those people as well.
Moni3, arguably one of our better content contributors, rewrote Harvey Milk, likely in hopes of getting it to FA status and after attempts to reason with Mosedschurte had to file a report at The Fringe noticeboard. Consensus there has been to remove the Mosedschurte-introduced content as synthesis and undue. Mosedschurte continued to edit war and is generally disrupting progress by content specialists who are trying to improve the article without all this persistent disruption, soapboxing and seemingly bad faith accusations. Other eyes on this would be welcome as this has been going on for 3-4 months. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) also lodged a personal attack on Moni3,[36] a top FA writer, which provoked me to get involved. A most exasperating situation involving SPAs, NPAs, OR, synthesis, and undue where the aim seems to be to overwhelm via verbosity. Just watch :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "Edit War". This is simply false, as anyone can see looking the article Harvey Milk. SandyGeorge deleted the material today and I did not add it back. Rather, we're discussing it on the Harvey Milk Talk Page.Second, there was no consensus to delete mention of the article before in the Rfc you mentioned. In fact, several people wished to include it, including:

“ "I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me.

”

Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several IPs and SPAs. Once again, Mosedschurte, pls read WP:TALK and WP:TP; I've rethreaded to respect the chonological order of posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I "personally attacked" moni3, I certainly did not. Several days ago, when a falsehood was stated about me, I stated that moni3 was lying about me, and I should not have gotten drawn down into that sort of cross-sniping, but I have never stated anything personal about moni3, whom I don't know.

Quite honestly, starting this "incident" seems to be descending further into that sniping campaign because I did not edit war the latest delete of the text, which has been gone. Moreover, one need only examine the Harvey Milk talk page to examine what has truly been going on.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not bother me nearly as much as I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article, that Mosedschurte is able to hijack the article from its ideal path to GA and FA despite all evidence and logic and civil attempts to educate him otherwise, and that it has lasted for months. Content is the reason this website exists. I have enjoyed more than 2 years of collaborative article writing on Wikipedia with great success, and no interaction I have ever experienced has been so unpleasant as battling with this editor. Perhaps that colors me sheltered. However, the integrity of content should be the most important issue on this website. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, re "I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article"? There is absolutely ZERO inaccurate information in the article. Every single source says precisely what is in the article. This charge is simply false. Second, in the entirely incorrect case that "inaccurate information" was inserted in an article, how could that possibly even "deeply offend" you?

I don't know the long history behind the Harvey Milk article, but the seeming gang warfare that occurs with regard to even the smallest attempted addition seems rather bizarre to me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyone who takes a peek at the talk page will see how much of a gang this is not.

Mosedschurte, I'm a rare editor who cares more about accuracy and content than self-image. You have pushed this POV of yours for months. It is a house of cards. It does not belong in the article because the best sources on Milk say it is not significant. I would have been mortified to make such accusations as you had, and I would have run off immediately to read the necessary related sources. But, again, all you care about is information about Jim Jones. Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality. You are interested in vague disconnected material that suggests significant links between Milk and Jim Jones despite solid first-person accounts to the contrary. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality."

This is simply false and is precisely the sort of sniping I wish to avoid.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB and Wildhartlivie, 5 of the 7 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better list, and you've still false claimed I'm "Edit Warring" when it is the 3 other editors that have simply deleted the text in its entirety and it has not been re-added as of now (or when you started this thread):

“ "I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me.

”

Mosedschurte (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB, CENSEI and Wildhartlivie - 5 of the 8 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support block or Very Last Chance From looking over her contribution history, User:Mosedschurte appears to be a single-purpose account whose only interest is the People's Temple. He appears to be pushing his specific point of view onto the article to me. His lengthy edits on the talk page make the discussion difficult to read, but consensus on that page appears to agree with User:Moni3 that the section he wants to add would not make the best encyclopedia article. I've added the article to my talk page, and I'd feel okay about a block if this user continues pushing his point of view on this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Notice given to user - I agree with FisherQueen (talk · contribs) that it is quite confusing to try to make sense of all of the talk page discussion. I have placed a note on the user's talk page recommending that Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) take a break from editing the article and come back and reevaluate. If after a break there is still disagreement about a particular portion of text we can start a fresh content-RfC. Consensus here appears to be that further disruption and/or inappropriate talk page demeanor would likely result in a block. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have an issue with the running tally User:Benjiboi is inserting in this thread. It is inappropriate and I take major offense at being pulled into this ongoing dispute three months after I left my comments on a RfC and then being lumped into a group as potentially a single purpose account tallied by Benjiboi or anyone else. Whether I am considered one of the two or three who left comments who isn't an SPA, that is not being made clear. I'm afraid I must insist that this particular lumping be stopped or that qualifications be made. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years, I've made over 14,000 edits on 6592 articles. I'm far from being an SPA and it is contentious to even remotely imply that I am.

I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included. That was essentially done, to an article about Peoples Temple alliances. Now this has spread to that article, and over more than one noticeboard. Milk, and other politicians, were involved to one extent or another, with Peoples Temple. It is bad faith to try and prevent that from even being mentioned, which seems to be the direction this is taking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included" -> I completely agree, and I'm moving to the point where I think any mention of these rather undisputed points in the Milk article just isn't going to happen. As you stated, it's probably just a "losing battle" given the seemingly odd press to delete all mentions of its existence, regardless of the large number of sources on the undisputed facts. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added to those comments to clarify you are not considered one of the majority of SPA's quoted. However you are with "movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple" again mischaracterizing these issues as Mosedschurte has always done that the goal is to remove any mention when the opposite is true. In fact the only NPOV and RS content concerning Jones/Peoples Temple first was introduced by me then, again, when Moni3 rewrote it. Despite there being NPOV and RS content in the article already, in every instance Mosedschurte insisted in having an entire section re-added ominously titled "Peoples Temple investigation" although Milk apparently never conducted one nor was Milk ever investigated. After Moni3's rewrite Mosedschurte simply reinserted the problematic sentences despite clear objections. They have inserted similar sections on at least four other biographies that I'm aware. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend mediation - On second thought, if there are multiple editors involved here and this is primarily a content dispute perhaps WP:MEDCAB would be an appropriate next step. Would the parties be agreeable to that? Cirt (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds fine, and I had already this morning basically given up trying to improve the Milk article. I think one issue is that is that the article covers a rather niche local historical figure about which not a huge number of people are aware, so there aren't a lot of eyes on the article now. It's basically been just me and three other editors that, pretty objectively speaking here, deleted every attempt at compromise language about Milk's support of the Temple, and I should be clear that I don't think they are doing so maliciously. But they haven't seemed particularly amenable to compromise language at all (every line deleted), so I 'm not sure a lot of headway can be made. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the other parties/significant contributors to the Harvey Milk article agreeable to mediation through WP:MEDCAB? Cirt (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to take this issue to mediation. I'm confident experienced editors will recognize Milk's involvement in the Temple in 1977 and 1978 was neither notable to Milk or to Jones, and that no authority is able to connect a significant and notable relationship between the two. I'll be happy to scan my sources and send them to curious editors so they can see for themselves. After that, however, will the article continue to endure the endless cyclical arguments of Mosedschurte, or will it be free to go on to GA and FA? --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to predict what could happen after mediation, but hopefully WP:MEDCAB will be able to bring about some sort of resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, I've basically given up trying to improve the article, so I wouldn't worry about my edits interfering with GA or FA. I don't plan on making any, at least in the near future. There appears to be a formatting error in footnote 3 you might want to address.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see this as an exercise in futility. Yet another opportunity for Mosedschurte's soapboxing and asserting some connection when they have failed on the Fringe board and just recently on the talkpage to convince anyone that this content needs any further weight in the article or that any reliable source anyway asserts some great connection not already in the article. That they are persistent and verbose, wearing down the patience and interest of other editors, should not be chalked up as a victory that they are correct or that the content beyond that already in the article is needed. I have every confidence that what has been summarized here, on the article talk page and the fringe noticeboard will be found more accurate to that of Mosedschurte's take on things. I hate to give them yet another opportunity to again argue and reiterate all the previously disputed synthesis but agree that if it results in them desisting from disrupting the article and talkpage and the processes to improve the article then it might help. Dealing with them has been one of the more unfortunate editing experiences I've encountered here. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the suggestion of WP:MEDCAB, as I know Moni3's intent is FA, and of all the possible vehicles of dispute resolution, IMO MedCab is the least likely to help achieve that aim and will come at the highest cost to Moni3 in the time when she could churn out a few more FAs. MedCab is a volunteer effort, and it is non-binding. I have seen cases where the mediator who took the case had literally been on Wiki a month or so, and certainly didn't have the level of knowledge that Moni3 has about highest quality sourcing and Wiki policies. I've also seen cases where the newbie mediators significantly worsened the situation. Unfortunately, with MedCab, it's the luck of the draw; you might get an excellent mediator (and there are some), or you might get someone whose knowledge of good article writing and Wiki policies is so far below yours that you'll be frustrated, and tied up in the same verbosity that now dominates the talk page when you could be writing an FA. And since it's not binding, you could find yourself right back in the same situation after the MedCab closes. Strange place to be in when there has already been an RfC that Moni3 complied with, and a post to WP:FTN where conclusions have been entirely one direction. I do recommend that every Wiki editor go through at least one MedCab so that can develop an appreciation for how Wiki dispute resolution processes advantage the tendentious, POV-pushing editors at the expense of a hard-working productive editor while also seeing the luck of the draw factor (I had a very good mediator once, but have seen about a dozen bad cases). I've unwatched because the article talk page was a timesink, with repetitive discussions going in circles. Good luck! Perhaps you'll get one of the top-notch MedCab people; my fingers are crossed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say more formal WP:RFM would also be a fine way to go from here but they generally suggest informal mediation has been attempted - though seeing the lengthy prior discussions and RfC history this may apply. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Editing restriction or block I've been looking at this dispute very casually for some time now without saying much, so here goes. I think Mosedschurte should just stay away from this subject. If you want to know why, there are three things I will point to as the best examples.

First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show, and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research. Every newspaper clipping Mosedschurte could get his hands on showing any kind of possible relationship between Jones and whatever Democrat he'd ever crossed paths with is pulled together to support Mosedschurte's personal interpretation.

Second, with this edit Mosedschurte tells us that he has "over 500 newspaper articles, 70,000 documents, hundreds of audiotapes and several videotapes of events in San Francisco at this time". Oh really? Obsess much? And where are you storing the furniture? I don't think I've encountered anyone out of the moon hoax movement who's accumulated that much paper to try to prove a nutty idea. And like a moon-hoaxer, he can generate more verbiage that doesn't amount to anything than any ten rational people.

Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template. No, really, look at it. I am not making this up. Does anyone here really expect him to ever contribute anything here that's not completely crackpot? What will it take for someone to finally do something about this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Cirt thought so, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice I removed the comments that Mosedschurte posted above because he interleaved them with my comments, thereby disrupting them. This is not acceptable editing of a talk page and Mosedschurte knows it. It's also typical of the way he tries to disrupt, delay and frustrate every discussion he participates in. He is welcome to post his comments in the appropriate way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people be agreeable that WP:RFM might be a more feasible way to go? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to check the timestamps to see if you asked that question before or after the alarming and surprising information posted by Steven J. Anderson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think mediation would be a good idea because there appear to be multiple other parties involved other than Mosedschurte (talk · contribs), and this could help work out some of these issues and move the discussion to a more centralized location. WP:ANI is probably not the best place for a drawn-out content dispute. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My finger's on the save page button for the mediation. Cirt, I'll do it if you think it will achieve something. If it will end this. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, try the more formal route, WP:RFM, and see what happens, good luck. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, mediation is the worst possible alternative in a situation like this. If there's one thing Mosedschurte has shown he has a talent for it's disrupting, frustrating and delaying every good-faith collaborative editing process available on Wikipedia. RFM would be just the kind of playground he thrives on. If no admin is willing to step in based on what has been posted here, I think it's a case for arbcom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stepehen J. Anderson just removed instead of moving my comments. Here's to what they responded:

Re: "Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template." (Stephen J. Anderson)

This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. Nor did I add it to any article. The user simply made this up, and I wish it would stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research." (Stephen J. Anderson)

First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". It is almost all the New York Times, San Francisco Chronice, Reiterman, etc. You simply made this up. Again. Third, I've actually been the one to add several quotes putting the alliance facts in context and attempting to add to the possible motivations of those involved. Again, please stop fabricating charges about me and please stop the personal sniping. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had every right to remove those comments because of the disruptive way they were interleaved. If Mosedschurte wants to reply to my post, he knows how to do it appropriately.

Mosedschurte writes: This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. The statement I made is utterly true. I didn't say Mosedschurte created the template. I said he added Mondale's and Mrs. Carter's names to them. This is obvious POV editing. I didn't make anything up. Mosedschurte did when he accused me. Stop lying.

Mosedschurte writes: First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". I didn't say Mosedschurte created the article. I said he has taken near-complete control of it and is using it for his purposes. If you don't understand what original research is, take a look at WP:SYN. Never mind. I'm sure you're quite aware of what it is and are dissembling. In short when you pull together a series of facts from a variety of sources to support your own personal thesis (That Jones had a particular political relationship with Milk, Moscone and Willie Brown), when that thesis is supported by no outside reliable sources, you are synthesizing information in a way that violates WP:OR --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moni3 (talk · contribs) has started a case page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk. I suggest further discussion go there and at that associated talk page for now. Everyone please try to focus on content issues and not contributors. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Mosedschurte is a disruptive single purpose account who is sapping the energy of numerous other editors in futile attempts to advance a POV. An editing restriction probably won't work as he appears to have no other interest in other topics, and is very single-minded. I propose that we him until such time as he gives an undertaking to cease circular arguments and accept consensus even when he disagrees with it, or agrees to abide by a mediation. This has gone on for months and the above discussion shows that it is very unlikely to stop without decisive action. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to a block but I don't think one is in order just yet. The user seems willing to go along with mediation and has been receptive to my attempts to tone it down a bit and take a break from editing that article. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cirt, I very much appreciate efforts to find positive resolution to this however, I don't see any other editors really campaigning to change what is currently on the Milk article. I'm not convinced that the non-SPA editors quoted above have seen the present article or aware it's been completely rewritten nor that they have reviewed the discussion at the Fringe board which went through each source Mosedschurte was attempting to use with the content they kept inserting. My suggestion, before again making myself and all these same editors go through everything - yet again - is have a look through the fringe board notice here and then see what, if anything, Mosedschurte would like to add, vet the sources and see if the content represents what those sources do state. I also would caution about a formal RfC as that's been gamed on the Milk article about this content before. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Similar "Peoples Temple investigation" sections were added by them on these biographies: George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment After reviewing Steven J. Anderson's posts above and Mosedschurte's newest article Raven (book) - I think they may be aligned with the Peoples Temple survivors and/or Alternative considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea as to the user's leaning in real life and do not care to presume who is is or is not "aligned with", which is starting to stray way afield from a discussion of how to improve this project. I am trying to get Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) to take a break, if not from wiki than certainly from the article Harvey Milk, and then come back and engage in the mediation process. I hope this will produce a positive outcome. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Very much appreciate that however this passionate Jim Jones/Peoples Temple SPA shows a near inability or refusal to comprehend reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies and has persisted to argue and bully by verbosity other editors across at least four public forums. Multiple editors consistently pointed out these concerns and the very same circular discussions took place. See how things are going at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk - they've now accused me of wikistalking. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to button this for future concerns - the user denies any alignment with either of these groups. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN + Kmweber blocked

Unresolved

*See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kmweber ban discussion Moved by MBisanz ^talk

• Moved back now.

I'm bringing this proposal back out here, a indef block on a long term user needs more input than it'll get hidden away on a subpage. RxS (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've brought the rest of the conversation out then. We should really refrain from breaking up discussions onto multiple pages. Why leave only half the block discussion on a subpage? It's wildly confusing. --JayHenry (t) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was very confusing. Thank-you for fixing that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN

On a recent AN thread I removed an uncivil comment directed at a new user from User:Kmweber. This comment was replaced by Kurt afterwards. I won't remove it again, but I stand by my original decision to do so. I'm asking for some more eyes to look at the comment itself, the context it was made in and the decision to remove it as well as to replace it. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was inappropriate; it was not relevant to the question asked and it was a violation of WP:BITE. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone help me understand how or why this is offensive to people. To me, it looks no more or less offensive than if an editor were to express their opinion that public schools should not waste taxpayer money or support Red Cross blood drives. His comment certainly does not look any more bizarre than Kurt's "prima facia" RfA opposes. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This sort of editing away other people's comments, though, always causes more harm than it cures, and never achieves the desired result. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rude. It's rude to someone who is new to Wikipedia and asked an honest question without expecting to be insulted. WP:AN is a place to discuss administrative actions that make the encyclopedia better; if Kurt wants to discuss his general feelings about educational philosophy, he should find a web forum somewhere. Personally, I think the community has put up with Kurt's bad manners and bizarre edits for far too long already, but that's not specifically relevant to this question. In my opinion, editing out this comment is necessary- this is a new user who will not understand that Kurt does not speak for the administrators when he's speaking on the administrators' noticeboard. I feel strongly about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was perfectly appropriate and perfectly relevant. The following comment I wrote on my talk page is germane:

He should feel unwelcome. He's attempting to use Wikipedia for a totally improper purpose. I fail to see how this is any different from attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise one's company or product. Keep in mind that, according to his own remarks, he's not using it for a class research project or anything like that. He's trying to use Wikipedia to promote a certain ideological viewpoint to his students. Wikipedia should not be accomodating the misuse of taxpayer funds to proselytize for a particular ideology.

I get the impression that you didn't bother reading what the guy said. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why this is seen as offensive. Why do the students need usernames, anyways? A blocked user can still view Wikipedia. I think we just need to drop this issue. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so they can edit articles and improve the encyclopedia? Why should we care. We aren't that school. It isn't our job to tell the guy "What you are doing sucks, we won't be a part of it". He asked for help for a legitimate purpose and the first response he got was some unrelated ideological screed. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that he wasn't trying to use Wikipedia for a legitimate purpose! He was trying to use Wikipedia for a totally illegitimate purpose, and we shouldn't be accomodating that. This isn't about what schools should or should not do; it's about what Wikipedia should and should not accomodate. What's so difficult to understand about that? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to understand that you feel that way at all. It is phenominally hard to believe that your response was civil or within the realm of WP:BITE. If you don't think teaching kids about free software is correct, then don't do it. Don't let it in your classroom. Make sure your school board doesn't talk about it. Whatever. Don't come on wikipedia and treat new users like scum. That's the problem. I don't care about the propriety or impropriety of free software or free software evangelism in the classroom. That wasn't the issue. The issue was you inserted your opinion into his business in a manner that didn't actually solve anything and didn't relate to the question at hand. He didn't come to wikipedia to hear your opinion about free software. And he doesn't need it. New users deserve to have their questions answered honestly and helpfully. If you can't do that then the least you can do is not answer them at all. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously still not paying attention? This has nothing to do with what the school in question should be doing and everything to do with what Wikipedia should be accomodating. I made my remark because I did not believe Wikipedia should be accomodating someone with a stated intent to abuse Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm paying attention. Sorry. Let me be more clear. It is unfathomable that this new user's request could be construed as an intent to abuse wikipedia in the sense that wikipedia would suffer. Unfathomable. You may imply that OSS evangelism shouldn't be in the schools but that is a curriculum and instruction decision. The use of wikipedia as a tool for that instruction, unless they plan to disrupt wikipedia, cannot possibly be twisted to represent a damage to the encyclopedia. Full Stop. Your opinion of their motives for editing the encyclopedia is totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They are totally relevant. If I see someone whose motives, as evidenced through his statements and actions, I believe to be abusive and malicious and not in the best interests of Wikipedia, then I most certainly will speak up and try to do something about it. If you want to discuss my assessment of his motives, that's one thing. But don't tell me my assessment is irrelevant, and certainly don't try to stifle a discussion of it. I had a problem with what he was doing, and believed it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia and not something we should be endorsing. Instead of discussing my reservations, you removed my statement. That is absolutely not acceptable. You are the one who acted inappropriately, not I. To say I shouldn't speak up when I believe someone's actions are harmful to Wikipedia is absurd. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify just a bit more: I had a concern that what the individual was trying to do was not in the best interests of Wikipedia. I'm a reasonable guy; present a superior argument and I can be convinced. But instead of addressing my concerns, you instead chose to suppress them. And that is a major, major, major problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why am I unreasonable (see below) for supposedly assuming that your comment was uncivil but you are reasonable in assuming that a school sysadmin is "abusive and malicious"? Don't bring this back to censorship. You get a lot of leeway around here because you conflate your actions with your positions on subjects. Your comments were rude and unjustified. Any context you felt was implied was totally missing from the words you left there. This was a new user. I felt that a new user's impression of wikipedia immediately before they decide to use it as a teaching tool was more important than your sense of righteousness, so I stepped in. If you want to express your feelings about how this user might intend to disrupt wikipedia, then you are of course free to do so in a manner that isn't insulting or condescending. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion of what schools should and should not be doing is completely 100% irrelevant. Nobody cares, and I'm sure he didn't either. If a school wishes to teach its students about open source projects, they can. As part of his demonstration/lesson plan, he was hoping to register students and introduce them to the project. Kmweber's comments were off topic and irrelevant. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is more clear. They shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion is your own. Not everyone wants to hear it or needs to hear it, especially new users. I used to support your being granted the ACC flag, but after this, there is no way I would. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree entirely with Kurt's thinking and approach, I also don't believe it's necessarily in the best interests of the project--OR of the students--to have 60+ middle-schoolers placed into the highly-confusing, politically-charged environment of en:WP without assurance that they will be suitably monitored, supervised, and guided. Unfortunately, my concerns regarding these issues were removed by WilyD and dismissed as "trash", which was far more unCIVIL than ANYthing I'd written. This is the same conversation we've had about classes of college students sent to "learn about WP"; how it's less-relevant to middle-school students, or more-BITEy, I fail to see. I agree that they should not feel unwelcome, but neither do I think we should accept their project plan with no reservations or questions at all.Gladys J Cortez 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gladys, that she has a right to voice her concern. Since it was civil it should not have been removed and certainly not with "trash". — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what Kim was referring to when he accused them of "proselytizing" (i.e. religious recruiting). I didn't see any hint of that, so I'd like for him to explain precisely what he was getting at, instead of talking as if everyone already knows what his point was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming he meant it in the colloquial sense--i.e. "proselytizing" of the open-source "religion". Doesn't matter; it was meant as a cutting statement, regardless. (Oh--and thanks, Rlevse. You're one of my more-respected Wikipedians, so your reinforcement means a lot.)Gladys J Cortez 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think what he means is that the school is touting the inherent goodness of Open Source. Whereas someone (like China?) might disagree. Of course, socialization and indoctrination is actually one of the main purposes of public education, which is why governments pay for it. Pledge allegiance, respect the police, all that sort of thing. So I don't see why Kurt feels it's not within their purview to advance other agendas. OSS isn't a religion as far as I know.

I do think it would be smart to make it clear to the school that they need to watch the students carefully because one bad apple will spoil the bunch. An autoblock of one user will encompass all the rest of them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dig. And you're right, that school officer should be advised to keep an eye on them... as with the other OSS. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Protonk did the right thing in removing the whole messy chunk, and that was quick thinking. As far as everything else? Well, I don't expect very much out of WR contributors, so I'd say that everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but the way it was put out there would probably have been fairly off-putting to the guy who made the request -- but was it bitey, eh, not really. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there may be concerns about letting sixty-plus middle school students loose on Wikipedia without a measure of guidance and supervision, but I'm not comfortable jumping to the conclusion that their teachers and sysadmins are totally naive about the environment here, either. We should offer our support and guidance, not the cold shoulder.

If an educator wants to introduce the kids to Wikipedia as part of Software Freedom Day, it's no more harmful than cleaning up the schoolyard and encouraging recycling on Earth Day, discussing HIV and safe sex on World AIDS Day, or even teaching a lesson about the history of piracy on International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Kids desperately need teachers and mentors who are willing to acknowledge, and encourage interaction with, the world outside the classroom. Exposing kids to Wikipedia under controlled, supervised conditions is the online equivalent of a field trip to the zoo. Sure, some of the kids might screw around, but we hope that most will gain an appreciation for our environment and the unique ecosystem we've built. A few might even grow up to be veterinarians admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That public education is currently used towards those ends does not mean that it necessarily should be used towards those ends. But it's not about whether or not this is a proper use of public education, really; it's about what is and is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia--it's about what Wikipedia should and should not be accomodating. I saw someone expressing an intent to abuse Wikipedia, and I called him out on it. I don't see the problem here. If you contend that this is not an abusive use of Wikipedia, that's one thing. But I saw what I consider to be an abusive use of Wikipedia, and I tried to put a stop to it. What else am I supposed to do when I see someone who I believe is out to abuse Wikipedia? Please, stop being absurd. Stop building strawmen, and pretending I said something I didn't. Pay attention to what I'm actually saying, rather pretending I said something that would give you a convenient excuse to attack me and silence me for daring to help Wikipedia. Are you here to make the encyclopedia better, or to cause problems? I know why I'm here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse wikipedia in what way - and compared to what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody put words into your mouth, Kurt. You said, "Public schools should not be in the business of proselytizing." And that's all you said. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of abusing Wikipedia, or of Wikipedia at all for that matter. You didn't call him on his intent to abuse Wikipedia, you called him on his intent to abuse the public school system. Too late to change the subject now. FWIW, I don't think your statement was BITE-y or inappropriate, just misplaced. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable person's thought process, upon seeing my comment, would not have been "Hmm, let's see how I can twist this and make assumptions to make him look like a bad guy." Rather, a reasonable person would have thought, "Hmm, there was obviously a reason for him posting this...Kurt's a good guy, who always does his best to help Wikipedia, so obviously he wouldn't have posted this unless he had a problem with Wikipedia being involved in this," and would have gone from there. I do not need to state every last detail when a reasonable person can easily infer them on his own; it's absurdly inefficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say having to go through all this at ANI is a helluva lot less efficient. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't if people had chosen to behave reasonably from the outset. I am not responsible for others choosing to behave in an unreasonable manner. Yes, people generally do behave unreasonably, but experience has shown that my batting average, while still pathetically low, is nonetheless higher if I assume people behave reasonably than if I assume they behave unreasonably--because, after all, there are usually only a small number (if even more than one at all) of reasonable ways to act, while there are so many unreasonable ways to act that the reasonable way is chosen more often than any particular unreasonable way. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. I've already made the request privately of one person in this little kerfluffle, but I see it's continuing. Can we have a bit more light, and a lot less heat in everyone's comments, especially when aimed at another person? The topic should be discussed, but without all the personal attacks. (not saying any particular comments crossed the line, but it got close) SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In the spring of 2007, a number of students from a composition class at the University of Minnesota, taught by 1013-josh (talk · contribs), had a group project to write and edit articles on Wikipedia. (I think he was doing so in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination.) A list of their contributions can be found at User talk:1013-josh. Just looking at their contributions to Itasca State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which went from this stub to this much more complete version, I think they did a heck of a job. They also learned something about working with other Wikipedia editors in the process. I wouldn't call that abuse, or proselytizing -- they did some good, constructive article development. I can't guarantee that a bunch of middle school students, with characteristic middle school attitudes, would be able to produce anything similar. However, knowing that a teacher is going to be taking a look at their edits, and grading them on how well they perform, they'll be less likely to abuse Wikipedia than most anonymous school students.

If you want to talk about what schools should or should not be teaching their students, that's a decision that the school administrators and parents should be having. Given how many school districts have arguments about intelligent design, creationism, abstinence-only sex education, and other hot-button issues, promotion of open-source software is unlikely to raise any eyebrows. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's comments were most likely a little soap-y and bite-y, and entirely failed to answer the question of the newcomer completely unversed in the culture of the place. But the situation is now entirely resolved without harm. There's no particular need to argue over it. WilyD 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're all being trolled by the way. John Reaves 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By whom? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Kurt, perhaps you can explain to us exactly what you mean when you say that you feel this person wanted to abuse Wikipedia? I'm not exactly clear on that since it seems like a good faith request, at the very least, and "abuse" is a pretty charged word. As for your original statement, it doesn't feel bite-y to me (although some of the things said afterwards have been colorful) just... misplaced maybe. Unless you're willing to elaborate on why you feel the way you do in some way that could convince the rest of us, it would probably be advisable to remove it. L'Aquatique[parlez] 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He's either talking in riddles or he's trying to be funny in some obscure way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would we go out of our way to accomodate someone who wishes to use Wikipedia to promote his own company? What about his preferred political candidate? His church? Of course we wouldn't. This is someone who wishes to use Wikipedia to promote his own ideology (that it's one I happen to agree with is beside the point). We shouldn't be accomodating that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the thread in question, I would like to observe that one of WP:AN's functions is to help people better edit. If the question is not on the right board, we can point them to the right board. A new user came there looking for help. One response was particularly helpful. One response was beyond the Pale in terms of not being helpful. Moving on and leaving that behind, I have just deleted a page that looked like it was created by a middle school student that was totally lost as to how to edit constructively. My question is this-- do we have a guideline or essay to help orient teachers and their students so they can contribute constructively? If so, would someone please point me that way? This is a recurring problem that I could deal with better. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a page exists at Wikipedia:School and university projects, which advises people who want to set up school projects and tracks what schools have such projects in progress. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic, Kurt. From what I know of the situation, he wasn't planning on using Wikipedia to promote open-source software, per se, but to teach about it which is a completely different thing and altogether more admirable (though promoting open source is hardly a crime, knock on wood). Knowing what I know- that many of our vandals are young'uns- I would much prefer that a kid's first experience with Wikipedia be under the guidance of a teacher or responsible adult. Some of them may stick around and become valuable contributers. That doesn't sound like something we should be passing up because someone doesn't agree with the ideology of the teacher's lesson plans. L'Aquatique[parlez] 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, L'Aquatique. thanks, Fisher. Dlohcierekim 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

on AN? I don't get it

The comment on AN is perhaps debatable but I don't see why it's all of your priority instead of something like "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did. Wikipedia rocks. It's too bad so many people are dedicated to pissing all over it." And I say this as someone tending toward the radical inclusionist end of the spectrum. I don't think the well, I'm quoting someone else so I can quote whatever I want defense holds up here. If this were a reasonable excuse for flagrant attacks, well... fill in your own reductio ad absurdum: _____. I just don't see how this sort of behavior is compatible with building an encyclopedia, nor do I see any other contributions indicating a willingness or, more to the point, a capability to work in a fundamentally collaborative project. As far as I can tell, there's nothing here besides playing provocateur, and seeing how far the limits can be pushed. That's traditionally defined in stark terms, but it seems that if one pushes the envelope slowly, the editors who defended in early stages, rather than admit they were wrong or that circumstances have changed, will end up defending things like "deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass". --JayHenry (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• (shrug) Doesn't really matter. After all, as soon as you use the word "deletionist" as a pejorative you instantly lose the argument anyway. It's like a Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law. Black Kite 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm officially lost. What do deletionists have to do with this!? Are you sure you're not posting to the wrong thread? L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is from his user page. I added a link. Most editors are requested to attempt to work collaboratively, refrain from attacks, to work on the encyclopedia, etc. For reasons I don't really understand this user has been granted an exemption from the general expectation. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, that's [Kurt's comment, not Jay's!] so far past uncivil it's potentially in a different area code... L'Aquatique[parlez] 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just encountered this user on an AfD, I'd have to agree he's rather abrasive and doesn't really seem to want to work with the community. His position seems to be if it exists its good enough for wikipedia which flies well in the face of long established consensus here as there are numerous guidelines for inclusion on various subjects etc, and doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several colorful metaphors that he left out, hence showing some restraint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're right..why have policies and guidelines... someone should give him a barnstar and a pat on the head right?--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a really firm pat. Three Stooges style. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent] Obviously, that sort of commentary is unacceptable. I've posted a message on Kurt's talk page asking him to be more tactful. Hopefully he chooses to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably a bit excessive...when I get around to it I'll remove it. But remember that deletionism is incompatible with building an encyclopedia, and that therefore upsetting them so they leave is a must if Wikipedia is to survive. And frankly, anyone who has bothered to understand deletionism realizes that that is a pretty accurate description of the mindset of the typical deletionist.

Also, I should add that people need to vent. So-called "civility" is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction. The fact is, intelligent people are passionate people, and passionate people can get upset. Shoving it under the rug, like we have done in the past, does nothing to solve the problem--it only creates deeper resentment that eventually blows up in one big conflagration. It's much better to let people vent on their userpages; it gives them an outlet without letting it get in the way of person-to-person interaction. This insistence that "Everyone put on a pretty face and pretend that we love each other all the time" is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. We need to let intelligent, passionate people be intelligent, passionate people. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And failing that, don't rule out the nuclear option. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

passion here, as in the outside world, can be a wonderful thing--but it depends both on the nature of the passion and -- in some cases -- how it's expressed. DGG (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

oh I see, very clear. If you want to vent do it off wikipedia. Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide you with an avenue to express your anger/frustration. Your threshold for inclusion at that which the community has decided is appropriate are not in sync. Deletion is a big part of wikipedia and frankly the project is far to big for you to change with a little hostility.--Crossmr (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, "naughty" or "nice" makes no difference, as the deletionists will win either way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"So-called 'civility' is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction." I absolutely cannot disagree more strongly with that statement by Kurt. The idea that a contributor cannot be both passionate and civil at the same time, or that being polite and respectful is somehow counterproductive, is utterly and completely untrue. I appreciate Kurt’s passion as much as anyone, but I urge him to reconsider that attitude. — Satori Son 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber - Arbitrary section break

To be honest, it's faulty logic because it assumes that the best users are intelligent users, and also that all intelligent users are so passionate that they cannot contain their opinions or at least state them in a way that isn't borderline offensive. We're not conducting research here, intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite to be a good Wikipedian. Patience, civility, and humility, however, are. L'Aquatique[parlez] 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Patience and civility be damned, this is, to me, bloody disgusting. With that comment, Kurt states that two editors who have a myriad of contributions - WBOSITG has four FAs!, for pete's sake, and MBisanz is a long-time contributor! - are "lazily deleting the hard work of others because you can't be bothered to do anything positive for the encyclopedia." That's one of the more condescending and rude comments I've read in a long time towards two excellent editors, and does nothing but continue Kurt's record of tilting at windmills. I couldn't give a damn about his AfD self-nom campaigning because I know that the bureaucrats are intelligent enough to filter the noise out of the signal there, but now he's moved on to blatantly attacking editors. We have to start looking at the whole here - the "Arbitrary Committee" things, the "deletionist vandalism" garbage, this - and see exactly what we're dealing with. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand why this rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is still allowed to edit here. Why are we all tiptoing round him? Someone block him, and let's end this drama. Majorly ^talk 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a some respect for this user (Kmweber, not Majorly) untill reading this thread. His opinions have always been unpopular, sure, and there's no problem with that, it's his blatant insults and labelling of other users that's appaling. He doesn't appear to have contributed significantly to the mainspace, and I'm sure there are plenty of users who have been blocked for less than this. His behaviour is completely immature, and he brings politics onto wikipedia.--Serviam (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And Majorly's comments calling Kurt a rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is not rude, incivil, belittling and condescending trolling? After all, saying that one does not like self-noms is far more uncivil that advocating that an editor be blocked for holding unpopular views and fierly defending them (ironically, Majorly, that block would serve to cool Kurt down. Who's advocating for CDB's now?). We all know how much Majorly hates Kurt. Can't we community topic ban Majorly from attacking Kurt? Especially after Majorly's previous incidents with Kurt? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Majorly is just addressing Kurt's talk page edits. At some point, hes (Kurt) going to end up being blocked over his trolling. Its getting excessive. Synergy 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this about Majorly? In this case, he is in the right, and pointing to past disagreements won't change that. Giggy (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, please read the thread. None of this is about an unpopular opinion about self-noms. It's been about comments like, "deletionism is incompatible with building an encyclopedia, and that therefore upsetting them so they leave is a must if Wikipedia is to survive" or "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass". That's obviously less civil than anything Majorly's said, but don't make this about Majorly. Make it about me if you want. I agree with his inclusionism and as for the rest, if you'd asked me a week ago what I thought of Kurt, I'd have told you quite honestly, "but I don't think of Kurt." And don't make it about civility. I'm not part of the civility police. Fuck the civility police, okay ;) The point is: it's not acceptable to spend all your time at Wikipedia spewing insults, provocations, tilting at windmills, and trying to irritate anyone who disagrees with you until they leave. I'm not advocating a ban, but look, we've banned many, many people for much, much less provocation (and people with much, much better contributions for that matter). I'm opposed to this idea that we should grant Kurt a permanent exemption from any possible standard of behavior, because he has an unpopular opinion at RFA. I don't care about his RFA position. I care about him pledging to irritate others until they quit, and doing so with apparent infinite impunity. --JayHenry (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jay. Don't forget the many AfDs hes disrupted to promote his ideas, and the many threads on either AN or AN/I in which he interjects just to point out that arb com needs to go away (not to mention his counterproductive talking points about policies and guidelines). I'm just saying, there is much more that goes ignored. Synergy 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, if Kurt starts out tomorrow with more crap like this [37] then I will most likely block him myself for trolling. See if he's calmed down by tomorrow, if not then he needs an enforced timeout. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'd support that 100%, especially given that he's been making similar statements on other AfDs. sorry, but why have we put up with him even this long?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I second this opinion, and note that it is an intention that I also hold. Kurt's conduct is now a serious concern for me, and I think his views and contributions in/to certain areas of the project to be very disruptive. Anthøny ✉ 00:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur. Stop showing him courtesy and instead show him the door. —Animum (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I completely support blocking him. It's about time he learned that trolling is not accepted here, no matter who you are. --Coffee // talk // ark // 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness there are some sane people left here. He should have been banned ages ago. I agree with Crossmr - why has it taken this long? He's pushed off numerous good editors in his time here; it's time he left for good. He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too. And I'll repeat what I said several months ago - his damage is vastly outweighing his good. Majorly ^talk 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Too many ANI/AN threads, too many times just barely slipping by being blocked, too many RfA's disrupted. It is time to make this one the last. Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tiptoety, 110 percent. It was funny while it lasted, but now it's gone too far. It needs to end without, "one more chance." iMatthew (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, it is time for this user to leave. In his time here, he has merely caused disruption, and has continually acted as a pest and annoyance on the English Wikipedia. A block, or even a ban, is long overdue. We need to stop giving leverage to trolls and instead force them to bend down to policy and accept the consequences of what they've done. It's time the community embraces the adequate and necessary action that needs to be taken against these editors. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A wise man once said, don't feed a troll. Unfortunately, constantly discussing whether to ban him does just that. Now, either ban him, or ignore him and don't - just for goodness sake stop feeding him threads on ANI.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't feed it. Block, someone? Majorly ^talk 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked

Moved to subheading by —Animum (talk) at 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

21:58, September 19, 2008 Hersfold (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kmweber (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (long, long, long, history of incivility and trolling. See WP:ANI#User:Kmweber on WP:AN) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Majorly ^talk 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this fell under "User has exhausted the patience of the community" and should, therefore, be listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users if there is enough support. Kylu (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some people will be relieved, but I honestly feel the block is unjustified. I'm sure now there's going to be a lengthy debate on whether to maintain it as indefinite..which effectively bans Kurt. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Should have been a warning, then a block after continuation. But he has in fact been doing this for a considerable length of time. Synergy 02:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block and (possible) ban – Oust him, rid him of an audience, and let's get on with ourselves. —Animum (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The block is completely unjustified. I love how all the examples of his long, long, history of incivility and trolling are are from this week. Maybe if you were assaulted for that long, you'd crack, too. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly limited to things that occurred during this week. Check his block log, and take a look at this, which clearly didn't happen overnight. The oppose-to-support ratio is practically 13:1, which isn't a very good sign for anyone, let alone someone with a reputation for these kind of things. —Animum (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the block unjustified? It's been discussed here about his trolling and disruption that led to his indefinite block, but if you believe it is unjustified, feel free to explain. SchfiftyThree 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Kurt was rationally explaining himself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite? Come on. This is purely the vindictive grudge-holders' revenge against Kurt. Maybe a week, at most, hopefully less. A ban is just ridiculous. Burn the heretic! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no consensus is reach on the block, it will simply turn into a ban. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This block has been a long time coming. He's been on the verge of it for months. This latest series of events was pretty much the last straw. Enough of his ridiculous behaviour. Majorly ^talk 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And anything less than indefinitely is likely ineffective - Kurt is extremely passionate and set in his ways..and it would almost be punitive. It's either indefinite or nothing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, you're welcome to look through his contributions if you like. This has been going on a really really really long time, and about every third ANI archive has a threat on Kurt alone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good riddance. Endorse, and let's get back to something productive. krimpet✽ 02:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse This could have sat for a few more days but the rationale is sound. I suspect there will be loud complaints about the block but we should listen to them. We shouldn't pretend that he was blocked for his views however we should endeavor to ensure that the appearance of that is minimized. But the remedy basically fits the problem. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as blocking administrator. I've had enough of him, and this discussion was the cherry on top. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block - does too much to damage morale among productive contributors and too little encyclopedia-building himself. When I saw the newcomer-biting I held my tongue, wondering just how far the community's tolerance would stretch. But really, the fellow just isn't collaboratively oriented. Everyone has a few opinions that miss out on community consensus; one key to getting along here is accepting that sometimes it's better to wait peaceably rather than pushing one's point--if the idea has merit the community will come around to it eventually. Kurt hasn't demonstrated that. If at some future point he's ready to be more cooperative this can be reconsidered. For now, the negatives outweigh the positives. Durova^Charge! 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support this block I've been looking through his contribs and randomly checking old diffs and his tone and types of comments have been here for awhile.--Crossmr (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. But I think we should have waited at least one more time... after a warning maybe. Synergy 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So below Prom3thean, who is clearly here for nonconstructive and almost vandalistic purposes needs an RfC, but Weber, who has done great things for Wikipedia, is just blocked on a whim? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "whim". Most of us knew this was coming months ago. Synergy 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Weber had an RfC. Nothing productive came of it. He's not changed his childish behaviour, so something needs to be done. Are you attempting to have us believe Kurt here for constructive purposes? What dream world are you living in, suggesting he's done "great things"? Majorly ^talk 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you're aware of the actual outcome of his RfCs? Giggy (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As I say, nothing productive came out of them. Majorly ^talk 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What;s this? Kmweber has done great things for wikipedia? You couldn't be further from the truth, he's the most inciviil user I've ever met.--Serviam (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kurt has only cracked in the two days that you've been on Wikipedia, so you have only seen the bad side of him, that comes out when people do things like ban him for being a WikiGnome and daring to oppose a lot on RfA. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are trolling, you are being incivil on purpose, which is the definition of trolling. I have been on wikipedia a lot longer than 2 days. We don't want to ban him for being a gnome, I just pointed out that I think people who write multiple featured articles are more valuable than people who make a few typos to unrelated articles between edits to the wikipdeia space. It's not nice to admit it, but it's true...--Serviam (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't ban people for not writing FA's. If we did, a large number of admin would be banned. J.delanoy, for example, has never written an FA, but is arguably the best vandal fighter we've had in a long time. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse: This has been a long time coming. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block/ban/cries of "burn him!". For one, because the 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC) comment cites his RfA voting as a reason to ban him. Utterly ridiculous. Giggy (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  So the trolling, incivility, etc all okay?--Crossmr (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  ... so putting words in my mouth is OK? I endorse Protonk's actions, but is should have been left at the removal, and nothing more. We don't block someone for making a typo, so to speak; we can resolve issues of occasional uncivil comments without a ban. Now, I dare you to show me actual evidence of trolling. Giggy (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  ...I'm surprised you need a diff giggy but, here's one for right now. Going over his contribs makes me nauseous. He has a history of entering into a conversation to make points such as these, and I think you know this. Synergy 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How is that trolling? He is just making his opinion on ArbCom. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but 153 opposes versus 14 supports and neutrals? (These are not including those votes that the tool could not decipher due to nonstandard formatting.) That clearly shows that something isn't right. Also, let's be honest with ourselves: we all know the bulk of, if not all, those opposes votes were based on flawed reasoning. But hey, it seems like hardly anyone at RFA greatly cares about superb logic anymore. —Animum (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Animum, what would you say if somebody had 153 supports and 14 opposes? Probably nothing, because the people who vote that way aren't noticed/ We do have people who have equally weak rationales to support.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Animum, I'd think a user of your poise and stature would know better than to advocate a ban because you disagree with his rational in RfA's. What is flawed reasoning is not yours to decide, and even so, the last time I checked, flawed RfA reasoning is not a reason to ban a user. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

His RfA votes aren't why I want him banned; the only reason I mentioned them was to point out as an anecdote the astounding incongruity between the amount of users he supports and those he opposes, not as any sort of premise for a ban. He's been uncivil, a troll, and he's known this to be coming at him for months, yet he has stubbornly refused to shape up. —Animum (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec with Erik) Wait, so on all the RfA pages it says anyone can support/oppose for whatever reason, we just ask for justification, etc. etc. But if you oppose too much, you get dragged over to ANI where you find out that opposing too much gets you banned? Furthermore, we all don't know that the votes are based on flawed reasoning, since so many people agree with said reasoning, including several admins. When they don't care about superb logic, how the hell did they pass RfA? Giggy (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It's "rationale"
2. WP:POINT repeatedly, after ignoring community advice in an WP:RFC, may well be a valid ban reason. (You've read the "community ban" section of our ban policy, right? He has been asked, repeatedly, to not do this.)
3. I think the rationalization of Kurt's actions is a bit of a stretch. When you repeatedly do something, socially, and everyone else in that social circle asks you not to... guess what? It's not everyone else being obtuse as to the social norms. Kylu (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, this ban is for his astounding invility and attempts to bring politics onto wikipedia. I've always respected his views, and so has almost every established user, but he's crossed the line with those comments about account creator and the respose he gave to that teacher. It was completely immature.--Serviam (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• weak oppose: Reason? Well, because, frankly, it would have been better to wait a bit to let the conversation continue. Kurt was in the middle of having a discussion with the community..and then he's blocked as indefinite quite abruptly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How many discussions/threads are there going to be before something is done? Majorly ^talk 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • True, there have been many discussions, but the grand majority of them have been due to his previously 'controversial" RfA opposes, which, if memory serves me correctly, have a strong consensus to allow and not badger. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This was a witch hunt.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was needed though. Any reason for opposing the block? Majorly ^talk 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he said his reason, right there after the word Oppose. Majorly, you really should be ashamed of yourself. You calling Kurt a troll is one of the greater acts of hypocrisy I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 September 2008

No, he said the way he was blocked was bad, not the reason. Stop making this personal whoever you are. Kurt is much more of a troll than me. Majorly ^talk 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm all for killing witches, it's just burning them that I have a problem with. Beheading them is perfectly fine with me. You are saying, I'm a troll, but Weber is more of a troll than me, so I'm granted a get-out-of-jail-free card for trolling. This makes perfect sense, doesn't it, Majorly?

• Endorse block, possible ban. Kurt has shown bad behavior, poor judgment, incivility, and most of his comments, posts, and RfA !votes are solely to prove a point. We welcome good-faith contributors, but Kurt was anything but, and was clearly not here to build a better encyclopedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Highly disruptive user. BJ^Talk 02:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Despite the comment above that states this is people "holding a grudge" against Kurt, I certainly don't; he's never voted against me, we've never clashed, or anything. I've seen him way too many times in RFAs, on the admins' noticeboards, and other places where he's done little more than stir up shit. Two requests for comment have come and gone with little effect, plenty of threads on the noticeboards, and still he's doing things like attacking a teacher for trying to show his students the way Wikipedia and sites like it operate, takes egregious potshots at good editors because they felt an article of his was not notable, and continues to cause disruption. Endorse until he tones it down a mile or so. (If I was feeling benevolent, I'd suggest a shorter block and mentoring or something, but I doubt that would pay off with him.) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's never "stirred up shit"; it's the people who bring him to said noticeboards because they disagree with him that stir up the aforementioned shit. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, suggest consideration of a ban. Kylu (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support block/endorse ban - While I feel that the block was a bit hasty, and personally it would have looked quite a bit more justified if it had been performed after all the supporters above would have stated their support. But it was coming and their is consensus for it now. I would have rather seen consensus for a ban first, and then have just blocked him as a part of the ban but oh well. Tiptoety ^talk 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

comment I do feel that some people are acting outraged at Kurt's words in an attempt to get him into trouble. For instance, he wrote one sentence about his belief that public schools shouldn't prosletize (not an outlandish opinion) and he had a quote from slashdot comments on his userpage, which is'nt even by him as far as we know, and people are acting all shocked and appalled. I don't find people expressing their opinions shocking, usually. But hey, he hasn't had a go at me or anyone such as my adoptees:) If people can't work with or tolerate him, there's really no other alternative on wiki, but I wish it weren't so.:( I like Kurt and I hope to see him in action elsewhere on the nets, if not here.:) It's a shame that Deletionpedia isn't recruiting as far as I know.:) Sticky Parkin 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh a quote you say? Well that makes it all the better. Perhaps I can look up a few quotes from Dr Laura to sprinkle all over my user page? Perhaps of the leaders of the KKK? It being a quote doesn't excuse it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support ban and editing block Kmweber's contribution to RFA and AFD have been disruptive to normal editing process, and I've warned him before. His editing is not conducive to collaborative editing. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more relevant to find instances of 'things not conducive to editing" in the mainspace? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. Majorly ^talk 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I was going for was that Kurt has contributed positively in the mainspace, and those examples seem to be lost amid all of the drama to the project space. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well most banned users have as well. It's irrelevant. Majorly ^talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Very. I'm tired of some users repeating "but he made a good edit here! what about this one?" every time someone they like finally tries the patience of the community. If they really feel this way perhaps they'd like to contribute to Wikipedia:Exchange chart on how many good edits various disruptive editing behaviours cost on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily think he shouldn't be blocked, but I oppose an indefinite block. Let's try a few days or a week and see if it has an effect. Everyking (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Should we give him the "yet another chance" barnstar and maybe a cookie? He's had 2 RfCs as someone noted above. Do you honestly feel that a few day block is really going to change anything? He's been making personal attacks and uncivil comments here for years and was blocked many times in the beginning. Is 1 more block really going to do it?--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  If it's clear to him that it's his last chance, then I think it might have an effect. If a few days or a week is too short, we could talk about a month, three months, or something like that. Everyking (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I noted above, he's had many chances to change his behavior and has blown them all with spectacular form. —Animum (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block - this was not "occasional uncivil comments," this was a history of incivility and disruption that had been getting worse over time. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. This user has a long history of of borderline – and not-so-borderline – personal attacks and trolling, particularly on AN, AN/I, RfA, and AfD. If the community at some point in the future decides to lift his block, I would recommend (at minimum) a ban from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reject ban - I guess when a gadfly has the nerve to sting everyone equally instead of his enemies preferentially, that makes him a good source for collective indignation. "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground." -Frederick Douglass Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I can't see your logic behind this comment. You don't seem to deny that he was trolling, and being uncivil but wish to make the point that he was doing it to everyone? How does being an equal opportunity disruptive user make it better?--Crossmr (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, it's about time someone pulled the trigger on this user. Wikipedia will have less drama now. Wizardman 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I am confused as to why this is even being discussed. This user needs to be blocked, unfortunate as this situation is. This is even true when one disregards his comments at RfA, a facet of his editing that is, perhaps, questionable in its legality. His incivility and absolute disregard from the warnings the community has given him are enough. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Block and ban - This has been a long time coming, let's end the discussion here and get back to building an encyclopedia. --Coffee // talk // ark // 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• The moment he says that people should vent and be incivil, I think he has more or less exhausted the patience of the community. This ain't a military base where fist-fights and exchanges of vulgarities is seen as progress. I know he has been quite a maverick at RfA, but I believe there are editors who can fill in his "check-and-balance" role without all the drama. Endorse block and ban. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong endorse block and ban - After being endlessly harassed by this guy, I see no other alternative. For someone who concentrates more on RfA and causing trouble then actually positively contributing to the mainspace, I've been questioning his reasons for editing the project for a while now. He's only here to cause a ruckus which in my book, is the definition of a troll. Thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. It has been said of other banned users that the reason they will stay banned is due to them being unable to work within the accepted norms and values of the community. There's nothing wrong with expressing an unpopular opinion, but the way Kurt does it is certainly unacceptable. At times, his behaviour is petty and juvenile; I was subject to persistent insults on the first (of two occasions) that I ever used IRC. I was told I "should be ashamed", that I have "ridiculous and backwards sensibilities.", that I used "Nazi-like behavior". When I requested that Kurt stop talking to me (though I didn't know who I was talking to at the time), it was met with this reply, "I will when you repent and stop picking on Bedford for doing the right thing". I feel the dialogue that happened between us is now germane to this discussion. Kurt deliberately chose to talk to me over IRC in order to evade the scrutiny of the community, which he would have been subject to if he had spoken to me the way he did on-wiki. I did try really hard to have a productive conversation and try to understand where Kurt was coming from. This incident just shows another example of behaviour that I find typical of Kurt. Endorse block and ban. Seraphim♥Whipp 09:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse At the end of the day this place is about building a content resource, not drama. Users who serve to only further drama, after many opportunities to change, and who behave contrary to expected community norms (which have a very wide degree of tolerance indeed) on a persistent basis, are people we can do without. Orderinchaos 11:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The saddening thing is that Kurt frequently claims to be acting as part of a community, using phrases like "so-called policies" or "arbitrary committee" when dismissing concepts or mechanisms. Trouble is, if Kurt truly felt he had community support for his actions, he would act to challenge those institutions directly. Sadly, as he does not have said community consensus, he often seems to snipe or attack them from the sides. It's highly unproductive and doesn't do anything to resolve his concerns or demonstrate a willingness to work with others. The time to "put up or shut up" as we say in England, or present a meaningful and cohesive argument or stop bickering, has long passed. Sorry.Gazimoff 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, per above. End this drama. This goes a little way to restoring my confidence in the RFA process. MER-C 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Erik the Red what is wrong with you? Anyone who can show this much comtempt for the project shoouldn't be permitted to edit here. He has almost no (2000) added by Erik the Red for clarification. mainspace edits.--Serviam (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be mean to Erik the Red! He'll start calling you a troll! Majorly ^talk 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Serviam, Kurt has several thousand more mainspace edits than yourself. Majorly, being mean to someone is the definition of trolling. Asking what the hell is wrong with me is most certainly being mean. Would you rather I call you a large, hideous, club-wielding creature accustomed to living under bridges and eating Billy Goats Gruff? Kurt shows a great desire to help the project by working behind the scenes. So now, Kurt is being banned for being a WikiGnome, eh? Figures. I would expect this kind of reason from Majorly. And don't start trolling, or, gasp, you might be called a troll! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has 4 times more mainspace edits than I have total edits, yet with my 500 edits I've racked up 3 gas 1 dyk 2 more articles on GAN and I'm brining one to FA. Kurt makes lots of unrelated type fixes to articles, which while being great, I think isn't as valuable as say, giggy or wbositg, both of whom have multiple fas, or tonythetiger, who has 105+ gas. Kurt has been immensly incivil over the past couple of days.--Serviam (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Observation Though I disagree with Kurt very strongly on a number of items, and most especially about the comment that started this mess... this thread, this subpage, and this incident have to be one of the most concentrated amalgamations of bad faith and grouphate I've seen on this project, and it's utterly appalling to see. I mean, sure, maybe a block was justified - I can understand that. But this feels very much like it has gone too far, too fast. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Your claim may have some validity, but consider that quantity of input does not equal pile-on, but merely more people wishing to affirm what has been said and add their sentiments. It is merely a strengthening of consensus. Claiming that those supporting Kurt's ban are assuming bad faith is a little unfair; it is not as if we have not all given him all the warnings, all the string, all the extra lee-way. AGF can only exntend to a point. Grouphate also seems to be taking the matter out of hand; no-one that I can see has outright insulted Kurt; he has been labeled a "troll", but this is a terminology, rather than an insult, in most insatnces on this page that I can put my finger on. He's been labeled as "disruptive", "uncivil", and "showing a disregard for policy", but these claims have often been backed by diffs and such. However, as I said before, your point does have some validity; piling on for the sake of piling on should be discouraged, and the general mood might need to be toned down a little. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block This is not a recent problem; Kurt has been freely expressing contempt for Wikipedia, its rules, and its editors, for a long time, and doing so in a way that makes other people feel badly. He has a right to his opinions (that people should not be allowed to nominate themselves for adminship, that no articles should ever be deleted), but his opinions are not held by many other users, and he doesn't have the right to insult the people who disagree with him and try to enforce his fringe opinions as his own law. He has said himself that he doesn't think civility is an appropriate way to behave, and he has made it clear that he has no intention of changing his style. In my opinion, the amount of good work he does is not worth the amount of disruption and aggravation he causes. Like Majorly, every time I encounter him disrupting another corner of the encyclopedia, I am baffled about why he wasn't blocked long ago. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I support any sanctions against users' who have a propensity to have minimal reason for following the "write an article" hypothesis and war intensely with others here who are here to volunteer. There have been many times in this users' editing tenure here where he has been warned beyond restraint, given many chances and given recommendations. If he chooses not to explore those avenues, we shouldn't have to follow them for him, possibly allowing (setting a precedent) for others to the do the same. Kurt has his right to express his opinions, just not forbid those who don't share them. Caulde 13:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block Having only been active again on Wikipedia around March, I was suprised Kurt was never penialized for all the trouble he caused around RfA. I almost never poke my head around AN/I anymore, but to see now that his history stretches there too makes me wonder how this didn't happen sooner.--KojiDude ^(C) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and add me to the list of editors scratching their heads over why this didn't happen a loooong time ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban. Three strikes and you're out. According to his block log, twice in the past his behavior has been so egregious someone felt the need to block him indefinitely. Both of those times the block was shortened, but it's clear he has had multiple chances to clean up his act, and hasn't done so. —Angr 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban - I agree with FisherQueen, every single experience I have had with him is a negative experience. Harrasing users on IRC, trolling, etc. is not appreciated here. Xclamation point 14:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, for what it's worth. It's one thing to annoy people with "Oppose, self-nom" and "Keep, it exists". We can live with that. It's another thing to attack people for not having the same opinion. We don't need to live with that. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Have to concur with this one, too much trolling at AFD and RFA for my, or anyone's, liking. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban enforced by block. Per a long-standing unwillingness to work constructively with the community and an increasing hostility towards other users. Cenarium ^Talk 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban — egregious and excessive incivility, and a long history of disruption. No need for the personal attacks and harassment he spews out all the time. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban, Kurt's behaviour was completely, incredibly, unthinkably unacceptable for a loooooooong time. This ban is long overdue. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban. For years, he's been trolling us and very actively making Wikipedia a worse place to be. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I've had quite enough of his trolling. SQL^{Query me!} 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban - He needs to go and go for good. He's had way too many second chances. Kurt kept pushing and pushing and this is what happens. This block/ban is a huge "net positive" for the project. He doesn't deserve to ever return. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I moved this section back out to the mainpage, an indef block on a long term user needs more eyes than it'll get hidden away on a subpage. RxS (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the above is talking about the indef block, the section you moved was talking about a topic ban. Talk about confusing matters... D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize what appears to be a very boisterous endorsement of a full ban from Wikipedia. However, I would like to propose a slight amendment. It seems that most (if not all) of Kurt's contentious/disputatious edits are to the project space (e.g RfA, AFD etc..etc.) Would the community be willing to seek a topic/project space ban in lieu of what is currently being suggested? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Let's focus him on mainspace for a while. Everyking (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt such restrictions would appeal to Mr. Weber.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wouldn't really have a choice in the matter. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that I am confident he would choose not to edit at all or try to circumvent the ban rather than abide by restrictions on his freedom to edit the topics that so fascinate him (RfAs, etc).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As an incentive, we could let him back onto project-space after a few weeks or months of productive, uncontroversial work in mainspace. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There were similar suggestions that other editors be given restrictions like this. The general consensus on the case I'm thinking of is "It's unfair to tell a contributor that he may contribute FA's, but be unallowed to voice himself in the running of the site." I imagine that Kurt would be of the same position, though you're welcome to ask him if he'd abide by it, knowing that it's not a promise from the community to implement that if he does agree. Fair enough? Kylu (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I doubt it would have any effect whatsoever. He's been given enough chances and has ignored them all. This is simply an attempt to allow him to continue the sort of abuse he has been blocked for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would never be a proponent of somebody abusing the system. If his problem is the project space..and it appears that a preponderance of his edits are to said area, then we cut it off at the hilt. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I sincerely hope Kurt wasn't blocked for his thoughts on RfA's, AfD's and ArbCom. If he was blocked for that then I would support a reversal of the block immediately. If he wasn't, and he really was blocked for gross incivility and trolling (which seems more likely), then I don't see the point of offering him a compromise to keep contributing to mainspace. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not so much the thoughts or the philosophy, but the execution. I believe a majority of the users here feel that he is incivil and "a troll" in select areas. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, and if it is the "execution", rather than the positions, then I can't really imagine supporting a topic ban. I also wouldn't feel comfortable supporting a topic ban big enough for him: the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk: namespaces. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• oppose he's had too long to change his course here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Kurt needs to go, topic bans aside. This kind of tolerance and softness is what allows this behavior and its proponents to fester. Enough is enough, this user has had umpteen warnings and has disregarded them continually. It's not like this came as any surprise. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Checking Interiot's tool:[38]

Total edits: 6239

Mainspace edits: 1970

Most edited articles

29 edits: Princeton, Indiana (C-class)

26 edits: List of counties in Indiana by population

17 edits: Indiana State Road 62 (start-class)

17 edits: List of counties in Indiana by area

13 edits: Gibson County Courthouse (start-class)

13 edits: Buehler Foods (start-class)

13 edits: Brumfield Elementary School (stub-class)

13 edits: Indiana State Road 64 (start-class)

13 edits: Lyles Station, Indiana (start-class)

12 edits: List of State Roads in Indiana

165 total edits to top 10 most edited articles

Most frequented noticeboards

91 edits: WP:ANI

34 edits: WP:AN

125 total edits to ANI and AN

Make of this what you will. Durova^Charge! 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that in his last 50 edits he has only had 1, 2, 3 in the mainspace. --Coffee // talk // ark // 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A topic ban would be too wide and would include the entire project namespace talk pages. That's way too large and I don't want to propose I know what Kurt would do, but I highly doubt he would accept this. Synergy 05:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It would at least give him a window to further participation. He might not accept it, but the opportunity would be there. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Then by all means, ask him. Then we will at least know... Synergy 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know if you've noticed or not, but only a small minority of people want him to have a window for further participation. The community has had enough of him. We shouldn't be bending over for people who can't have the common courtesy to respect the project and people in it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not what concerns me. The point, is that if I am correct and he wouldn't deal with a topic ban, then there's nothing more to discuss. And even if he was willing to accept it, we have a consensus that won't allow it. Either way its moot (but it never hurts to ask him regardless). Synergy 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I just realized you weren't talking to me Crossmr... :) Synergy 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless it's a proper block it won't do anything.--Serviam (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose At this point anything less than a block is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Besides the fact that you'd basically have to ban him from every other namespace (Project namespace and every talk namespace except user talk), which is just completely ridiculous and likely to cause more drama than its worth, he's been given too many chances already. Mr.Z-man 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Just siteban per my above. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal II

It seems like the consensus is, "Leave the indefinite block in place." If the editor wants to edit again, they can offer suggestions how they might behave differently. Voting is not needed, and should be discouraged. Is any administrator willing to unblock them at this time? If not, they are banned. To get the ban lifted, a discussion should happen here with a consensus to give the editor a second (third?, fourth?, ..., umpteenth?) chance. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned enough that the discussion took place on a subpage, with a possible bias in participants, that I would ask whether the discussion can be re-run. Obviously it can't without annoying the people who took part in the original discussion. Was there a link from AN or ANI to the subpage while the discussion -> block -> de facto ban discussion sequence took place? I would have totally missed this if this notice hadn't been placed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion for the block took place totally on this page. There is no point whatsoever in having yet another discussion about it. There was a link posted in a section here, so any interested person could have easily seen it. Anyhow, it's back here now. What's the fuss? Majorly ^talk 14:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The blocking admin seems to have taken several hours to 1) Post a block notice on Kurt's talk page and 2) to mention it here. This could well have distorted the discussion - certainly, I was following this discussion well after the block was actually placed, and saw no notice of it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Several hours? No, the block occurred at 01:58 and the notice of the block appeared on ANI at 01:59 (as part of a long discussion already taking place on ANI). The note on Kurt's talk page was placed at 02:18. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the notice of the block (on which I was relying) it occured at 21:58 on the 19th. "21:58, September 19, 2008 Hersfold (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kmweber (Talk | contribs)" DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That was Hersfold's local time, not UTC. Hersfold did post here immediately after making the block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - and for the reminder of the importance of using UTC on a site edited from all around the world. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The point, Majorly, is that your comments are all over that page, and now here. You are asking what the fuss is? For someone who has made 14 comments to that thread, either here at ANI, or while the discussion was on that subpage, you for one seem to be making a big fuss about this:

Majorly's comments during the block/ban discussion

All quotes taken from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion:

1. I'm failing to understand why this rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is still allowed to edit here. Why are we all tiptoing round him? Someone block him, and let's end this drama. Majorly talk 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Thank goodness there are some sane people left here. He should have been banned ages ago. I agree with Crossmr - why has it taken this long? He's pushed off numerous good editors in his time here; it's time he left for good. He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too. And I'll repeat what I said several months ago - his damage is vastly outweighing his good. Majorly talk 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
3. [In response to a comment calling Kurt a troll] Yes, don't feed it. Block, someone? Majorly talk 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
4. [In response to the block] Thank you so much. Majorly talk 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
5. This block has been a long time coming. He's been on the verge of it for months. This latest series of events was pretty much the last straw. Enough of his ridiculous behaviour. Majorly talk 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Weber had an RfC. Nothing productive came of it. He's not changed his childish behaviour, so something needs to be done. Are you attempting to have us believe Kurt here for constructive purposes? What dream world are you living in, suggesting he's done "great things"? Majorly talk 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes. As I say, nothing productive came out of them. Majorly talk 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
8. How many discussions/threads are there going to be before something is done? Majorly talk 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
9. It was needed though. Any reason for opposing the block? Majorly talk 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
10. No, he said the way he was blocked was bad, not the reason. Stop making this personal whoever you are. Kurt is much more of a troll than me. Majorly talk 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Why? Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes, well most banned users have as well. It's irrelevant. Majorly talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Don't be mean to Erik the Red! He'll start calling you a troll! Majorly talk 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
14. [In response to this] I don't see any problem whatsoever with that comment. Majorly talk 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of those comments are fine for the discussion at hand, but some are really over the top and unacceptable (I'm primarily thinking of "He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too." and "Block, someone?"). What I see on that page is a strong consensus for a block and possibly a ban, but while reading that page the other impression I got was that you were cheerleading the block and encouraging it and debating with those opposing it. I'm putting my quotes of your comments in a collapse box to prevent them being too obtrusive, but please, read them and try and gauge the overall impression they give. Can't you see, stepping back for a moment, the impression that the page gave me when I, as someone who was reading it for the first time, arrived there? There were other people's comments that raised my eyebrows, but it was your contributions to the thread that really stood out, and not in a good way. I'm also concerned that people exaggerated the case to get the result they wanted. For example, compare the block log comment "long, long, long, history of incivility and trolling" and the blocking admin's assertion: "This has been going on a really really really long time, and about every third ANI archive has a threat [sic] on Kurt alone" How does that square with Durova's contributions analysis that showed that Kurt's made 125 total edits to ANI and AN? I'm also concerned that some of those supporting a ban in this discussion were those that tried to get him banned over the RfA 'prima facie' opposes. Though I realise that some were clear that this ban discussion was because of recent behaviour, I think that some may have let their irritation at the RfA business sway them. I obviously can't prove that, but the possibility and its implications make me very uncomfortable about how this block came about and how the discussion was conducted. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the subpage started today. No administrator objected to the ban there. Unless somebody objects here within a couple days, then a community ban takes effect. I personally take no position on this. I'm just shuffling papers here and trying to make sure we get a clear decision and have a fair process (most important). Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To assess the fairness of the process, could the following be determined? (1) When did the ANI thread start? (2) Was Kurt notified of it and did he contribute to it? (3) Has Kurt edited since that point? (4) When did a ban or block first get proposed? (5) When did the discussion get moved to a subpage? (6) When did the block take place? (7) How long was the discussion running for before the block took place? (8) How long has the discussion been running for in total? The issue of relatively-quick ban discussions (less than a day) has been mentioned before. The issue of discussions shuffling around from page to page might not have been mentioned before, but I would have thought that was obvious (even with a note left here on ANI). The other point is a more general one that I've raised elsewhere on the page? Why is ANI being appropriated for ban discussions, and why are ban discussions being allowed to evolve from previous ANI threads? To make things less of a 'heat of the moment' reaction, it would be better if ban discussions were started afresh on AN, supervised in some way, and allowed to continue for a set period of time. Too short a disucssion and you don't get a broad cross-section of the community (some of them may be asleep, for one thing). I'll now try and answer my eight questions above. Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The thread began 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
2. Kurt was aware of the thread and did post.
3. He also edited several times to several other pages since then.
4. Things began running downhill about halfway through the first subsection (that it, text right under the main header), and really got ugly in the next subsection. The first person to actually say "Let's block him" was Majorly, third comment in the Arbitrary section break, at 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC), however I think both L'Aquatique and Tony Fox were trying to steer the conversation that way just prior. Kurt did not post at any point after those comments were made.
5. The subpage was made at 02:58, September 20, 2008 (UTC) by MBisanz, and was moved back here at 16:01, September 20, 2008 (UTC) by JayHank - 15 hours later.
6. The block was made at 01:58, September 20, 2008 by Hersfold (me) - I should note the block log quoted above in in Eastern US Time, and thus four hours off.
7. The discussion was running for two days before the block; four hours had passed between the first block suggestion and the block itself.
8. The discussion has been running for approximately two days and sixteen and a half hours. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers Hersfold. JayHenry has also given some answers on my talk page:

"The ANI thread started with Protonk's 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC). Kurt responded to this (defending his attacks on a new user) and responded to the second thread, begun by me, at 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) in which I raised concern about him calling deletionists a "fucking retarded subclass". He responded acknowledging the comment was over the line, but pledging to irritate all deletionists until they quit. The first explicit call for blocking was 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) although he is a long time user who has been warned ad nauseam about his civility. He was blocked at 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC). The conversation remained on the Main Page until Sticky Parkin's 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC). At this point, MBisanz moved onto a subpage..." - JayHenry (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the pre-block discussion had taken place here at ANI, so that's cleared up that point. And the link left behind did say "ban discussion", but still, that doesn't really address the concerns that at least two or three other people here have raised beside me (and JayHenry has also agreed with me on my talk page that it is difficult to judge situations where someone has clearly made enemies, as Kurt has). Maybe a link to the previous ban discussions is needed as a reminder to people of what happened there. I also want to ask if anyone heard of this discussion through IRC? Majorly said during the discussion: "He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too." That completely unnecessary comment has the feel about it of someone using IRC. If people came to the discussion after hearing about it in IRC, that would be a hopelessly skewed situation.

Looking at the actual block/ban discussion. Hersfold, as you say, you blocked four hours after the first block suggestion. Do you honestly think that four hours of discussion is enough to decide the outcome of a community ban or indefinite block discussion? That does not give time for much of the community to become aware that the thread had moved from an ANI thread about a dispute, to a block and then ban discussion. I agree with what Ultraexactzz said above:

"...this thread, this subpage, and this incident have to be one of the most concentrated amalgamations of bad faith and grouphate I've seen on this project, and it's utterly appalling to see. I mean, sure, maybe a block was justified - I can understand that. But this feels very much like it has gone too far, too fast." - Ultraexactzz 12:55, 20 September 2008

The ban discussion is continuing now, and I'm not disputing the present consensus (though consensus can change or be made moot by new developments) but doesn't anyone think that the disjointed nature of the discussion (yanked back and forth between two pages), the outgrowth from a heated ANI thread, and the block enacted by you (Hersfold) after only four hours of discussion, has affected things or unduly prejudiced the outcome? Think back to other times you've seen this sort of things happen or thought things were moving too fast. Step back and honestly ask yourself if that has that happened here? If the answer is yes, what do we do about it? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if the block was fast, there is overwhelming consensus here it was the right thing to do. Do you think he should be unblocked, or are you process wonking for the sake of it? My very necessary comment, regarding IRC is simply pointing out that he is banned long term from many channels. Hardly any users are banned like that. He's a problem there, and is a problem here. Due to the overwhelming consensus that he should be banned, is it really necessary to go over things over and over again, just because you weren't here? Majorly ^talk 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I support limiting him to mainspace, consensus for an outright block seems overwhelming. As Jehochman suggests, the only way Kurt might be able to reduce the severity of this now is to make some promises and apologies. Everyking (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's a low point in Wikipedia. A indef block rush through and then hidden on a subpage, accompanied by some pretty outrageous personal attacks and widespread misinterpretation of the history of this debate (especially the meaning of Kurt's last RFC). A vengeful, agenda driven mob cloaked themselves in righteousness and bullied a long term editor out in what, 4 hours? Majorly, Hersfold and several others have conducted themselves with an extraordinary low degree of judgment and thoughtfulness. When I saw this come up last night I wanted to say something but there was no way I was going to jump into the middle of an irrational mob. Bluntly speaking, I'm disgusted. It's clear that it's not what you say or how you say it, it's who you piss off. RxS (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Who invented the idea it was "hidden" on a subpage? It was moved there, with a prominent link, to remove traffic away from this page, as what happens with numerous long threads. You complain of personal attacks, when you yourself make them "vengeful, agenda driven mob". Bullied? What? Where? And Kurt has been completely innocent of the same has he? How about concentrating on the subject at hand, instead of attacking the people bringing this to discussion. It's no one's problem but your own that you didn't want to leave a comment. Are we suddenly not a mob anymore, that you can leave a comment? Stop assuming bad faith of people. Majorly ^talk 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hidden when it's taken off of people watch lists. Which is what happens when a subpage is created. A high profile editor in good standing is indef blocked and then the discussion is removed from watch lists is hiding it. Period. We assume good faith until there is evidence of the contrary, which in this case is plentiful. As for the rest I'm not going to get further involved with some electronic Lord of the Flies bizarro world. RxS (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

His talkpage

Anyone want to semi his talkpage to stop things like this from occuring? D.M.N. (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem whatsoever with that comment. Majorly ^talk 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't Majorly, your premature blanking of his user page suggests that you are unable to maintain a detached attitude on this. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any comment by Majorly should be tossed out as idiotic and meaningless. Hm, I remind myself of someone commenting on a user's RfA opposes... Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a little rough, Erik. I'd strike that ASAP if you want to stifle the on-coming trouble it's going to start.--KojiDude ^(C) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true, though. I've had enough of Majorly's hypocrisy. I might go and pull a Kurt and break conformity- oh, wait, that would get me banned, wouldn't it? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It very well might if your incivility continues. Majorly is being perfectly reasonable in this discussion; you are not. Please review WP:NPA and stop at once. Calling people idiotic, meaningless, and hypocritical is offensive and will stop now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hersfold and Kojidude: please strikethrough. It should be possible to express the truth as one sees it without stooping to insults. Durova^Charge! 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have semi-protected Kurt's talk page. While there was only the one instance, it seems reasonable to assume that won't be the last. If he doesn't want it, any admin is free to remove it. (Hurrah for the new protection form!) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that both Majorly and Erik the Red 2 are contributing significantly more heat than light at this point. I would encourage both of them to think very carefully about any further additions to this or any related threads.

• Majorly: Insulting, anonymous taunting is unwelcome everywhere, even on the talk pages of blocked or banned users. You should know better than to endorse such petty, cowardly, mean-spirited attacks.
• Erik: Adding in your own personal attacks is an ineffective dispute resolution strategy. Not only is it likely to get you blocked, but it undermines your credibility.

I will consider blocking one or both of you until the Kurt matter is resolved if you make any more unconstructive edits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Thanks for the semi-protect. D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you reserve comments like this for the talk pages of the individuals in question? Everyking (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, because Majorly has started commenting again (I actually think he should be allowed to do so, but just to think a bit more carefully about what he is saying), such a warning should (talking to ToAT now) go on Majorly's talk page. Majorly might not have seen this part of the thread yet. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [title corrected 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Wikipedia toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Wikipedia; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were no rules. I boldly corrected an error. I was informed that were i to continue in my correction of errors i would "very likely be accused of vandalism", to which i replied with cites of previous complaints about the abuse of the [:Category:Pseudoscience]. I could also have made mention of the 2 previous CfD for the entire category itself. I have already explained my support for the category's restrained usage primarily in its non-pejorative significance. The characterization of "tendentious" is false, because i was correcting toward the neutral point of view. I was correcting tendentious use of a misused category tag. That i did so a single time with numerous tags also contradicts this characterization, which could mean "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Once i was resisted then i stopped that method of correction and sought another method, engaging more people. This indicates to the contrary regarding 'disruptive' editing style, which is "persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." In the case of the former, i wasn't persistently editing a single page. The latter (undue weight) was what i was attempting to restrict from perturbing the topics i observed as under contention. I saw the opportunity to improve Wikipedia, and so may have ignored some rules, as charged. Which ones? I'm not actually sure.

• I thought my strategies for addressing the error was inventive, creative, and gradually focussed. First it followed after a specific user suggestion by MartinPhi by removing the poorly-related subcategories. When this was opposed, i recommended a complement category tag which i agree was indeed making a POINT. I accepted this ruling and decided that i was not likely to produce a change in the overall trends and dynamics in Wikipedia (as i set about exploring other Wikis and began to notice how they looked and behaved like MUDs) and, during observation of certain cultural struggles in the topical areas of my interest, provided my observations on the whole as a basis for attempting to redress the problem from another tack: the restraint on the abuse of the pejorative Pseudoscience category.

• The CfD ruling was that this (correcting the Pseudoscience category) was my apparent point, and some of those who contributed seemed to agree that the pejorative tag was problematic. Where better to address the problem than on the Talk page of that category? So i began engaging conversation there and following out both pro (usage) and con (abuse) discussion there clarifying rational examining of its employment. I think i have addressed the relevant portions of your commentary.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" [39]?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Wikipedia policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Wikipedia) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question Massive POV push? and request for "some help on understanding what the heck is going on". Rather than answer the question, you attack the messenger and instead of giving your own explanation, attack my attempt at giving a concise answer. You object to my description of "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem", but that seems to me to be a fair description of the massive amount of impenetrable prose at Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis and Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Helpfully, Self-ref has given an "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" of the former post –

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If my translation is correct, that means that he doesn't like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR being applied to non-notable subjects. As shown at #Summing up above, the latter discussion suggests that he doesn't like WP:NPOV/FAQ much either. I've also commented there on Cat's objectives. By the way, you will note that today's featured article, Anekantavada, is fully supported by citations to reliable third party sources. Think about it. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi dave. Could you give specific quotes from me that indicate that i don't like those things? I would appreciate it.

• In regard to WP:V, i like it very much, and i would prefer not to see it abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong.

• WP:NPOV informs my motivation for correcting the POV-intrusion of pejorative category tagging. By its very characterization it is obvious that this type of category is easily abused. There have been adequate explanations for this in the Pseudoscience category Talk page (arguably justifying its complete removal). I have explained why it ought remain, as comparable to Category:Hoaxes or Category:Fallacies, which are helpfully explained as to how and why these are conventionally so regarded. In general, the error that is being committed is in consideration of a topic and where its borders extend. To the extent that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" topic intrusion inserts hyper-skeptical and opposing topical matter into the main article. This is disruptive of encyclopedic content, and should be curtailed as a form of POV-pushing. I am taking both specific steps and broad-ranging explanatory means of correcting this. I am open myself to correction, and since i am a new editor at Wikipedia am continually taking cues from my elder editors (and especially writers). It is my aim "to present each of the significant views [within a topic] fairly and not [to] assert any one of them as correct." I think that until a topic is generally evaluated as a hoax, or as a fallacy, or as a pseudoscience, it is POV-pushing to apply such a blatantly pejorative categorization to it, and especially to ambiguous referents which these pseudosciences may study. With that in mind, i do dispute that a proper treatment has been given to Pseudoscience categorization in this arbitration, and have explained why in the Pseudoscience category's Talk page as seems appropriate (there are several sections challenging it). I am still waiting for rational arguments against me in any of those sections. Perhaps it is a convention that cites are necessary for Category Talk pages? I haven't noticed this.

• WP:NOR seems completely common-sense to me. I don't think that i have ever edited an article in Wikipedia and failed to support it with proper sources. If you know of an instance, please point it out. I don't think that this applies to User_pages, Talk_pages, or Village_pump_pages which have been my primary contribution thusfar in Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia i have of course constructed many pages with variable citation, since they weren't all encyclopedias. Surely i have much to learn as regards this principle of Wikipedia, but i am neither opposed to its application on non-notable subjects (examples?) nor do i think that the notability guideline has as much weight as do the editing principles (in fact i think notability guidelines are too heavily emphasized and should be moderated against an unlimited data holdings so as not to treat Wikipedia as if it were a paper encyclopedia).

• With regard to WP:NPOV/FAQ, i very strongly agree that "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." I also like the rest of the page very much except the presented Pseudoscience arbitration, which i dispute is illogical, should not apply to an expansive use of the Pseudoscience category, and contains four decisions by 8 people on the category, 2 of which are not even unanimous. I am not out of line to dispute it, especially as i am helping to clarify the referents of its application -- something which is barely touched on in the arbitration because its focus is elsewhere.

Dave, you maintain that i have a "tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump", and yet i don't think i've contributed more than a single extended essay there and, when asked to provide an 'executive summary' did so without complaint, answering all questions put to me for clarification. You also state that i made "proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy." I think i clarified that above. I agree with the policy, and agree that the arbitration produced that result, but i dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification, thinking that it extended a ridiculous expansion to the support for applying this pejorative category tag. I support its restriction to nouns only, and have made this penatrably clear both on Category talk:Pseudoscience and in the couple of essays that i wrote explaining why the category's misuse is a problem and why i think that it is being misused (an extension of cultural struggles into Wikipedia, sullying its content).

Therefore, in brief, dave, your contentions about my positions are extreme, unfounded (you don't provide pointers to where i dispute these principles), and for all but one exception in the last, which i answer to above, are 180 degrees off-base. Can you explain how you got such an incorrect impression of me? Is there something i can do to help you penetrate my prose, see my support of Wiki editing principles, and allow me to object to the Weapon of Effacement in pursuit of a healthier Wikipedia? In Good Faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, hopefully you're getting the hang of WP:TLDR. Apologies for the extent to which my quick attempt at translation fell short, however you still don't seem to like "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The notability guideline gives a basis for working, subject to common sense and consensus on any particular article, and there's rightly no exemption clause for "esoteric topics" unsupported by third party reliable sources. Some New Thought related articles have been improved a bit by being stripped of some peacock language and wording completely unsupported by sources, but even a reasonably notable subject such as the Christian D. Larson bio is supported only by passing references in a couple of modern books, a 1919 history, and a history published by Optimist International – an article supported only by self-published sources, and so another article needing improvement to meet the threshold of WP:V. The other core content policies all have a bearing on how "esoteric topics" are presented, if at all, and have to apply. If you wish to dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy then you've got to persuade a lot of people before you start implementing your own ideas about it. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. I consider WP:TLDR to be a hostile means of addressing communication problems that would be better and more faithfully resolved by clear, thoughtful questions. Thank you for your apology, accepted.

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:V, just repeated your contention that i still "don't seem to like it". Where dave? Does some part of "i would prefer not to see it (WP:V) abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong." mean this to you? I can tell you that the practice to which i refer has me writing elsewhere than Wikipedia. I know others for whom this is true, and some who seem to be about to transit to that activity also. I don't think driving away writers is what is best for Wikipedia, do you?

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:NOR, with which you appear to be associating notability. I thought ANIs were supposed to be more thorough and specific than that. Since i'm just now learning about the details of administration and negotiations in Wikipedia i'll watch for what standards should be engaged in an ANI. So far it appears to me a distraction from conversations better had elsewhere about the actual categories and their use and abuse. Making it personal seems to me the wrong way to handle such discussions, because it assumes bad faith rather than addressing the issues proper in a polite and clear way in the context of the topic, category, and page of the dispute.

I will now no longer respond to your accusations without substantiation referring to my writing. I have adequately refuted your contentions about what principles you think i "seem to dislike". I will now proceed to address only what i regard as substance in your comments.

Your point about WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy seems very sound, and i like it very much. Can you give me some advice here? If nobody discusses the implementation of that policy on the Talk page of the Pseudoscience category, then where will it be discussed? I don't see anyone arguing that i am incorrect on that page, only (at least recently) a silence, allowing me to make the first (possibly unpracticed and misguided) attempt to do what was already agreed: discuss each of the subcategories and consider them for inclusion or exclusion. If anything, i offer an intermediary position between those who demand the category's deletion and those who seem to be abusing it. I don't accept the legitimacy or wisdom of that policy's implementation, and so of course i proceed from that basis, explaining what i think is logical and rational (and most conservative). Others may argue to the contrary regarding each of the subcategories' inclusion/exclusion in response. If they do not, and if people just remain silent, does this mean that there is a consensus, or that the category has been abandoned, or what? I hear your direction to "persuade a lot of people" before i start implementing my ideas of it. I thought the best course was to have a conversation about the implementation, and then implement what was hammered out in the Talk page. How long should i wait in silence unopposed to my arguments for these subcategories' exclusion before i begin implementing that? Should i wait 3 weeks and then begin implementing those which aren't covered by the policy arbitration first, referring to those who object to my edits to engage discussion on the category page instead of engaging in an edit war with me? You're an admin here, dave, surely you know the best procedure. Thank you for your assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question..." Ah, Dave souza, since when do users bring complaints to AN/I because they assume good faith? I would have thought that, by now, you would have figured out that this is where users come when they have run out of good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably not relevant. What would seem to me to be relevant would be Cat and Self-ref's flouting of WP's policies regarding verifiable, reliable content, vis-a-vis the persistent use of the word "hostile", to paint said policies as "evil". Let's try to stick with that point, and leave the digressions on user talk pages. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? It is a comment exactly on the accusation (disguised as a question) originally made by Zero1328. If you can't remember, take a look at Dave souza's edit just above, and at the top of this section on the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But, how does it address the real issue? It doesn't. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and came back to find this. I've seen ANI discussions before, and this one is certainly atypical. Normally the complaining party supplies diffs, examples, a desired outcome, and such, but this is just a lot of opinionating and fake mind-reading. The complaining party has failed to bring forth (dare i say it?) verifiable evidence that i don't support verifiability, NPOV or other Wikipedia policies -- because i DO support those policies.

My concern has been that editors with an agenda (political and/or religious, primarily) are misusing deletion selectively against topics that fall into their pet peeve categories. I gave stated (and supported with diffs and examples) my belief that at least one editor deleted rather than upgraded older and less-well-sourced articles on spirituality, self-help, New Thought, Creationism, Christianity, Spiritualism, divination, folklore, et al. I write in many categories (e.g dog breeds, collectibles, celebrities, music, science, religion, folklore, etc.), but only in religious and magical categories have i seem articles targeted for stubbing and deletion by editors who show great disrespect for the writers who created and/or upgraded the articles in the past.

We all know that Wikipedia standards are changing, and that old articles with no citations as well as last year's articles with end-of-article footnotes are getting tagged. It would not be difficult for the taggers to play fair and notify the writers who have worked on the articles that inline citations are being sought -- because getting the refs will be easiest for the writers who wrote the pages, since they were working from material they have in print or know how to find online.

My record of writing, copy editing, and cite-tagging for veriifiability is clear. I am not interested in low gossip, name-calling, or baiting. Since no "incidents" have been mentioned in this supposed incident report, i shall now take my leave, thanking those kind souls who supported me, and leaving what remains of this gossipy thread to the mind-readers and mentalists who prefer Wikidrama to writing encyclopedia entries.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, glad you could join in. Unfortunately your confidence in your mind-reading powers seems undiminished, and again your argument is based on your presumption that an editor acting properly in accordance with policies, working through related articles in a normal way, had an "agenda". Your belief in his "agenda" is unfounded and irrelevant, and again you don't seem to realise that the editor was never in a position to delete any articles – that's an admin decision. You do seem to have learnt the idea of requesting references, though an unreferenced tag with the edit summary (entirely void of sourcing)[40] is rather POINTy on an article with two inline cites to BBC articles, and external links including the Guardian and The Times. However, your next edit is fine,[41] and you are of course free to delete any completely unsupported text. As always, it's up to those wanting to keep the information to provide verification. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Recommended to pursue RFC.

Administrator User:Docu seems to be currently signing all his comments simply with the text "User:Docu". The lack of a timestamp or links to his userpage/talkpage make it more difficult for other users and I, and others, have asked him why he doesn't include these.

Looking through his talk page:

In March 2008, User:Rarelibra raised a concern about Docu's signing of comments.

In July 2008, Gary King asked Docu to "add a link to your user talk page at the very least in your signature". Docu doesn't do so, nor does he explain why not.

On September 6, 2008, User:Quiddity suggests Docu adds a link to his signature who doesn't do so and lightly rebuffs the suggestion saying that "User page can be accessed quite easily anyways".

On September 16, 2008, I ask Docu to explain why he doesn't include a link to his pages and a timestamp to which Docu replied that the issue was being discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia talk:Signatures. This discussion is quickly removed from his talk page in line which his practice which appears to be removal, rather than archiving, of old comments.

Failing to find an answer to my original question at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, I then asked again on his talk page and User:RFBailey raised the same issue. Docu has yet to really answer our questions.

There could be other instance where this issue has been raised which I am not aware.

The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures about the guideline now appears to becoming distracted by Docu's signature, or lack of it, and as such I am looking to see how this can be resolved. If this isn't the appropriate venue then I would welcome and advise as to where may be more suited. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but seriously, is this issue really that important in the scheme of things? His sig isn't misleading, and it isn't disruptive. Let's just leave it at that and go work on the encyclopedia... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, different circumstances, but apparently sigs are a BID DEAL, why I have no idea. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, definitely not familiar with that case because I make it a point to stay away from Arb stuff. It's so much easier to just use common sense and do what you think is right. But looking at that case, the party had a deliberately confusing sig. Simply not having a link is not disruptive in the least bit, nor does it really relate back to that Arb case in terms of what the ArbCom stated in its decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative attention. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Docu's still around? Do you realize he's been using that sig since, hell, at least 2003? I remember people grumbling about that before. It's not that big a deal. Try spending more time on the writing and less on pointing out issues like signatures. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minor issue when compared to say, world hunger, but basic etiquette would be nice. I'd rather not delve through the history of talk pages to work out when someone has signed their comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has been done for five years doesn't make it right. And while I agree it's a minor issue, community norms (as defined at WP:SIG) requires a link to either his user talk or user page in his signature. As he's an admin, it seems even more important that he follow community standards (which also includes adding a date/time to all talk page comments). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority anyway, and so what it says is irrelevant... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And heeeeeereee we go with the random drop in of "Arbitrary Committee" attacks. Don't you have another windmill to tilt against, Kurt? SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Go on Kurt, stand for ArbCom this year. I'd vote for you. Black Kite 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I voted for Kurt for the board, if he stands for Arbcom I will vote for him for sure. Sticky Parkin 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see this become a teapot tempest. I would hope, now that the matter has been brought to Docu's attention a couple of times, that he would just add a link to his user or talk page to his sig, and sign with a datestamp (just like everyone else does). While we allow all our editors a fair bit of leeway with their sigs, having a link and a datestamp is simple courtesy to other editors. (Links make communication easier, while datestamps are helpful in long, threaded discussions on busy noticeboards.)

As admins, we're supposed to at least try to stick to best practices on Wikipedia and set a good example; those include signing with four tildes and not doing things that inconvenience others. Please, Docu? While I doubt you'll face any sanctions over this, is there any reason why you'd want to make work for other contributors, or why you wouldn't want a link in your sig? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I agree with the above. I've been watching this unfold on WT:SIG and haven't jumped in because I've hoped that Docu would simply consent to using a more standard signature that at least provides users with a link to the user page or talk page, and please try signing talk pages with the datestamp. The signature confuses bots, makes it difficult to tell when a comment was made (in some cases making it difficult to realise that Docu commented at all), and adds an unnecessary step for users who are trying to access the user/talk/contributions/etc. I really can't see any good reason not to link, and I do believe it's a wholly reasonable request that people are making here. Shereth 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he's been using it since 2003. I honestly cannot believe it's been dragged to AIV. It's not the first time it's happened. If he was acting in a disruptive matter, I could see it. He's not, he never has, and I'm not particularly happy with the constant instruction creep flowing into WP:SIG being hauled up as if it were policy. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this was something that should have been brought to AN/I OR AIV, but since it's here. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for him at least to have a timestamp. We have quite a bit of leeway with signatures (which might be hypocritical coming from someone who essentially opposed an rfa because of a signature, but oh wellsies) but the whole point of a signature is to know who said something and when. We have the who, now we just need the when. L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disruptive, albeit minor. As for leeway, please see WP:SIG, specifically the section which mandates a user or user talk link in signatures. There doesn't seem to be much leeway there, IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question...why is a timestamp on the page necessary, when all of our posts are timestamped regardless if we add one or not. It is on the diffs and our contrib pages, I am just curious as to why that it is necessary for it to beside our sigs as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (the previous statement was made by a non-admin)

Two reasons, one so that people reading a discussion can see the order in which it was made, particularly on deletion discussion, RFAs, etc. Second, it lets the bot know how old a thread is and when to archive it. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Well, there's many reasons. Mainly, if you're looking at a heavily edited talk page or archives, the edit in question may be buried hundreds of diffs ago. This can be especially difficult for users utilizing assistive technology, text browsers, or just plain old hardware. The point of having a timestamp attached is that you know immediately who said what when without having to dig through the page history. This is random, but you do not have to mark your comments as being made by a non-admin. Many of the contributors here are not admins, it's not a requirement for posting on this board.
Locke: at risk of sounding like a broken record, WP:SIG is a guideline and by it's very definition has leeway. Please see WP:IAR. L'Aquatique[parlez] 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is typically only invoked when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I fail to see how ignoring community norms (and a guideline; which I believe is more like a policy given how widely respected it is) and making it more difficult to interact with you helps the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread IAR- it can be applied wherever it needs to be. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, but going straight to "let's block" is not helpful either. L'Aquatique[parlez] 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to reread it yourself (on a side note, telling someone who's been here longer than you to read something they've edited repeatedly themselves is borderline silly)— "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Exactly as I said, "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", neither of which ignoring WP:SIG does. So I again ask you, how is Docu in the right to ignore community norms? BTW, nobody is going straight to "let's block". As I understand it, he's been talked to about this for years. At some point you need to escalate things if you expect conformance. Otherwise, all the rules/guidelines/policies in the world won't mean a thing if you refuse to enforce them. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and IAR does not mean you can go on blindly ignoring something if people call you on it. If people call you on it you have to discuss it and get consensus for the change which doesn't seem to have happened here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now I know who I can ignore if I run into a conflict or discussion with. People who make their pages inaccessible or difficult to reach get no dealings from me. seicer | talk | contribs 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly making it difficult to reach, User:Docu in the address bar and off you go. It's just not as easy as if there was a sig there. --Ged UK (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is as competent enough about URLs and using computers that such a thing is obvious. Including (mandating) a user or user talk link makes the site more accessible to new editors/computer users. Using plaintext signatures does the opposite.. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. While I could do that, I'm not because it involves modifying my URL bar, doing a query in the search bar, or doing an action that only impedes communication. That's not difficult for me, but it can be for many new users or users who just don't want to communicate with a user who is choosing to be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can just put it in the "search" and wait for it to pop up. User:Docu is being kind of a jerk on this, but it's a crime akin to tearing a tag off a mattress. I'd like to see this trivial matter go to ArbCom and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. I'm just replacing my signature with

Most excellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cripes. I surely did not intend to open such a can o' worms. I didn't realize Docu had been using the unlinked sig for years, nor that others had asked before.

To clarify: I added the sentence to the guideline, in July 2007, primarily (at the time) because User:Anthony was linking his signature directly to Special:Emailuser (see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 5#Recourses for other links and context).

The thing I'm baffled by, is Docu's apparent refusal to answer the simple question of "why not?". There must be a reason he doesn't like timestamps and a linked signature (I can guess at possibilities), but despite all these people asking, he seems to keep ignoring that specific question. I think this refusal to communicate (along with his admin status) is what is making this into a bigger deal than it otherwise would be. (I think this is what Adambro was trying to explain with his initial post here).

It's all very trivial/minor (no link, no timestamp, no explanation), but still frustrating. Mostly the lack of timestamp is the real concern. It makes it very hard to comprehend the flow of certain threads. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a guy won't answer a question, there's usually a very good reason: He doesn't want to. And since the penalty for not signing properly is roughly the same as that for driving without a seat belt in your own driveway, he can't be compelled to testify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't have the courtesy to answer the simple question as to why he won't include these details then why should the community be prepared to tolerate the nuisance of this? Quiddity sums up the situation very well. It surprises me not only that someone would consider it appropriate to omit these details but also that someone, especially an administrator, would not actually explain the reason behind their decision. If Docu can't provide a good explanation then this can be described as him being disruptive, plain and simple, and some kind of action should be taken to stop this disruption, what form this action should take is the big question however. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor deliberately makes it hard for other editors to communicate with him. He signs in a way which can disrupt archiving. He repeatedly fails to respond to other editors concerns about this. Maybe a short block would attract his attention (and before anyone claims that that is not what blocks are for, I have seen plenty of examples of admins explicitly blocking just to get a response from an uncommunicative or unresponsive editor). DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I find his signature (along with the lack of willingness to talk about it in a meaningful way) disruptive. I guess the question would be, no snarkiness intended, is it selfish and lazy of me or any other user for wanting to see the time stamp or being able to click through to the user page of this admin straight off? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Locke- your comment has long passed, but to call me silly for asking you to reread IAR is also silly- and the "I've been here longer than you" argument is both condescending and irrelevant. Moving on.

Why doesn't someone open an RFC about this? Going around and around in circles about it here is only going to stir up drama- but taking it to arbcom would be ridiculuous. If the user has been asked to change it for some five odd years and has not yet responded, chances are good they aren't going to respond. So do something about it. L'Aquatique[parlez] 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense another admin food-fight coming on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever get the feeling there might be too many admins with too much time on their hands? Doesn't anybody write and edit articles anymore? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Either make an RFC, or take it to ArbCom, or do both (one after the other) - the community can't do much, and I see no benefit in keeping this discussion open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I originally commented, I wasn't sure where best to raise this. The suggestions to start an RFC have been noted and I'll investigate doing so. Clearly this isn't something for ArbCom. Adambro (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unsigned}} can be used to add link and timestamp where an editor fails to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What good would an RfC do besides foster drama and ill-will? There is absolutely NO chance that ArbCom or any admin will block or otherwise sanction a longtime user for having an incomplete (as opposed to disruptive or misleading) signature. I wish I lived in the sort of sunny, happy-go-lucky would where someone's sig was something to start dispute-resolution processes over... or even think about, for that matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to both Adambro and Starblind) As was suggested very early on in this discussion already, ArbCom have intervened in a variety of types of disputes on-wiki. Should an RFC fail, unless there's an intention on proposing a community ban discussion (which will almost definitely not go anywhere), this isn't the place and that's the only other avenue left. I'll emphasise: nobody is compelled to use any of those processes, but these are merely the options available - the appropriateness of each option is something for each individual to consider themselves. We're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I had thought it was self-evident by by post at the top.

  But before trying to further to clarify, may I ask if you looked at the diffs (both, before and now), and to share your opinion of them. - jc37 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diffs, and I must say I'm afraid I can't see what this thread is about. Unless there are deleted contribs that only admins can see, other than this uncivil post, this editor's contributions don't even seem particularly problematic to me. If there are allegations of socking, where are the diffs please, where is the related SSP or checkuser case? Oppose ban. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question i ran trough the history of his talk page, and i noticed the absence of both warning templates or even an explanation before he was blocked the first time. Unless discussion took place somewhere else or there has been some form of grave misconduct i am unaware of, it is customary to warn a user before blocking him or her. Besides, i ran trough his recent edits and i fail to see any PoV pushing that bad it warrants an instant block. At the same time the diff above is unfriendly, but if it is the only misconduct i would say like to note that if that offense was a reason for an instant ban, we would have to do so for quite some people. Pure vandals must receive four warnings before being eligible for a block, so i fail to see why this case should warrant one without warning? So for now Oppose Ban. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Arrr, he can walk the plank. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, all that is visible to me is small amounts of POV-pushing followed by an excessive block, and no attempts to discuss the issue with the user. There is nothing here yet that supports a formal ban. If there is more, please show it. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Kusma and auburnpilot. No to a ban on the basis of the "evidence" presented here. I don't see what the diff jc37 posted is supposed to prove. And where's the checkuser case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The diff posted is only one example of the trolling and POV pushing exhibited by this user. The fact that he came back right after an extended block to wave an edit in Raul's face is simply childish. We don't need editors like this here, who are not only unwilling to learn from their mistakes, but persist in acts of seeming "revenge" against those who opposed them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  This is a fair part of the concern. That and the edit history (and gaps thereof) suggest that they are using socks to achieve this (on the articles noted, and presumably elsewhere). - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would not characterize a 1 week block (and unblocked the next day) as an "extended block", and have difficulty understanding how anyone else could. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the block log for some reason. Either way, he hasn't improved any, and we don't need this level of immaturity here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - a "long time missing" is surely not grounds for any administrative action at all, let alone a ban. I'll just add that I have informed the editor in question of this thread, as no-one else appears to have bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. An editor who has made but 45 edits, very few of which highlight behaviour arising from anything other than a poor understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are expected to conduct themselves, does not deserve a formal slamming-of-the-door. I would suggest instead an experienced and uninvolved administrator sit down with this editor and give some serious tuition about how we behave on a collaborative encyclopedia, and make clear the consequences if s/he does not conform to the communal standards of conduct we hold here. (My message at User talk:Dpmuk#Skin Hunters may be a useful example.) However, on the proposal to ban this user, I do not believe this to be a move that facilitates the improvement of the encyclopedia; and, if the worst comes to the worst and Boondocks37 disrupts in the future, an administrator can simply issue a preventive block. Now, let's get back to some article writing. Anthøny ✉ 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you would like to be that person, please feel free. (Though after using this account to POV push, they seem to have gone "inactive" again, so I'm not sure you'll get through, but please, feel free to make the attempt.) - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nah ah, definetly premature for a community ban, a good way to the solve the issue is not always the right way. Also theres something wrong with the diff you provided and that is he said it against Raul.......seriously its Raul so im not to fussed about him trolling a troll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pot, meet kettle. Black Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Would solve the "perceived" problem sure..but I just don't see it. Inappropriately dealt with in the past..no warnings..just a strange (possibly immature attitude) with a few troublesome diffs. I'm just not seeing the appropriateness of issuing the ban. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't use the nuclear option on people out of pique. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to deal with the consequences of controversial actions the same way as us lesser beings. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Excirial

Resolved

 – There is no urgent need for administrator intervention. Consider suggestions in the Dispute Resolution policy for ongoing concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Excirial to leave me alone!! He has been asked not to engage with me but he keeps posting things about me which mischaracterise my actions (see Chunky Rice's page). Now he has posted a patronising "apology" on my page which again distorts what happened when I started editing here. He is aware that I feel like I am being bullied and this doesn't help!! miniluv (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is WP:DR material by now? For those that do not know this relates to this previous ANI along with a long discussion on several talk pages including mine, his, rice's and hut 8.5's. I told Rice i would abstain from further discussion with Ministry of Love and any involvement with the articles in question since the discussion was heading nowhere.

This morning i noticed that miniluv added good quality sources to the AFD in question which clearly indicated that he was right in his claim that the article in question is notable. As of such i concluded that he had no intention of disruption and that the entire situation quite likely escalated by a lack of assumption of good faith from my side. As of such i hoped that an (rather long) explanation about what happened along with an apology would clear or at least improve the somewhat hostile atmosphere between us. Guess this is not the case... and i am thoroughly confused by this. I fail to understand how trying to explain what happened along with offering my (honest) apologies could miss its intended goal by so much its effect seems to be the opposite of my own intention... :( Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up disruption as though it is somehow relevant to my actions. You said you wouldn't have any more involvement with the articles. But you did!! You agreed not to engage with me. But you did!! I don't need you to "explain" what happened or to imply that what happened was my fault because I'm just a confused girl who misunderstood something in the overwhelming world of wiki! I just need you to leave me alone!!! miniluv (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"He" is simply trying to explain his thought processes and the actions he took and offering you an apology for his part in it. Maybe you should take the advice of the many editors that aren't Excirial and have a look at some of the relevant policies. No doubt that he and the others may have been able to make their points a little better but, that doesn't excuse the errant actions that you seem to have took during the encounters either. The adult thing to do would seem to be apologising to each other for the misunderstandings and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. Additionally, I don't see how this requires any administrator action. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash, what are my "errant actions" that you refer to??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this question at my talkpage as Ministry of Love asked it there before I saw it here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To any reviewing admin: Should i start a WP:DR procedure for this, or just forget about this entire situation and move on, closing this ani? I really don't like having someone angry or annoyed with me over a misunderstanding, but by now it feels that any attempt from me to solve this is actually counterproductive. I tried to explain to miniluv why i am not out to bully her several times now, but to no avail. At the same time miniluv seems to wish that any attempt from me to fix this issue stops, no matter if i am trying to explain the situation or simply want to say good job since she managed to add quality sources to the article we were discussing about. For me this is getting close to the "Unfix able issue" corner. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to communicate further with this editor, who doesn't seem open to your olive branch, I'd drop it in the "unfixable issue" corner and move on. You don't have a dispute with her. If she thinks she has a dispute with you, she can read WP:DR and follow the procedure herself, though I'm at a loss as to how that apology could be construed as bullying. It seems nicely done to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try an analogy so that maybe people will understand where I've coming from. A creepy guy sits next to you on the bus. He makes you feel uncomfortable. A fellow passenger notices this and asks him to sit somewhere else. The creepy guy agrees and moves. Then he comes back and sits next to you but he says its only because he wants to tell you he likes your sweater. Does that help? I don't think I have a dispute with Excirial so long as he agrees to stay away from my page. I hope this makes my feelings a little bit clearer. miniluv (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read over WP:DR. Without a need for emergency admin intervention, this is not the venue for discussing the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note For me this issue is done and over with. I will engage in no further discussion about this time waste of a non-issue as there seems to be no solution for it. Everything seems handled, and on neither side there seems to be a further reason to communicate as points have been told and re-told at length already. As both parties claim there is no issue between another i would kindly request that both parties drop the issue and disengage from any further discussion on this topic regardless of the medium, regardless of the person discussed with (This to prevent provocation by starting more discussion at other users pages). Also my apologies to waste valuable admin time with this kind of nonsense. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

accusation anti-semitic bias

I have concerns about an unsupported accusation of anti-semitic bias on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Tene Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite often when an article is nominated for AfD, the author of the article detonates. It's understandable, I suppose. And when they detonate, they grab at the first thing they can think of that "proves" the nominator to be at fault rather than the article. In this case, you're (s/he says) an anti-semite, so the AfD should be withdrawn etc and you banned for good measure blah blah blah. I know it's tiresome and offensive, but such ludicrous attacks are best ignored. Nevertheless, I'll give the editor in question a quick tap of the cluestick about WP:NPA. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not you they're attacking, it's the other person to comment. Nevertheless, I'll still tap. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, am I missing Talk Like a Pirate Day? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrrrrr. Orderinchaos 11:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry by User:Depaulicize -- complex case.

Could someone look at the edits by User:Depaulicize, and perhaps check the IP s/he is using? I suspect that this is the same vandal who has edited, with hundreds of sockpuppets, as User:Runtshit, as User:Truthprofessor, as User:Zuminous, and as User:Borisyy. All of these IDs share a common modus operandi, and attack overlapping targets. They are characterised by an obsession with anti-Zionist Jews, including Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, Neve Gordon and, as in this case, Norman Finkelstein; they frequently use user names hinting at the target of their attacks; they make constant BLP violations, often relying on unreliable sources such as FrontPage Magazine; they often recycle libellous comments by Steven Plaut. Anyone who studies these vandals closely will easily see the shared style and approach, which is again apparent in this editor.

Given previous experience on articles such as Neve Gordon and Barry Chamish, I think it is very likely that a series of one-off accounts will appear now to make libellous edits to Norman Finkelstein, following the pattern created by Depaulicize. I don't know what action would be appropriate or possible, but I request that this situation, and the Finkelstein article in particular, be closely watched. RolandR (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to file a request at WP:RCU? Or maybe you should bring it up at WP:SSP? Regards SoArrr!Why 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple. This could only be understood as a vandalising sockpuppet in the context of the long history of the other editors; taken on its own, it simply looks like a highly partisan, POV, single purpose account. It is the pattern and style, rather than the explicit content, that marks this as a clone of the others. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf

Can someone please block this ip 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He/she is currently vandalizing NBA records. More info about this user is on WP:LTA.—Chris! _ct 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Same edits as 75.34.49.124 (talk · contribs · logs) and 99.141.71.246 (talk · contribs · logs), both IPs with limited editing histories focused on the same topic, both IPs sharing common origination points with those listed at Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Confirmed_and_suspected_sock-puppets_.2858.29 are suggestive that 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs · logs) is in fact a sock of indefinitely blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · logs) — Myasuda (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [42], [43], and this [44] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:

• Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
• [45][46][47][48][49] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
• On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...

• Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.

Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)

• Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny ✉ 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement

I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

• In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
• I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
• The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
• The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
• My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
• The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
• In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
• In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
• The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigris the Majestic

I am here to report on User:Tigris the Majestic, whom I suspect of being a sockpuppet of User:Yorkshirian\User:Gennarous. He pops up every once and a while and changes the Fascism article without consensus. He replaces the summarized text in the Italian Fascism section with nearly whole Italian Fascism article. He also deletes chunks of cited text (I suspect because he just doesn't argee with) and changes Nazism to National Socialism when Nazism is the peferred title since may non fascist groups used the title "National Socialism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, I be notifyin' Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) of this thread, maytey. Down the hatch, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Very likely  Confirmed per checkuser. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Steelerfan-94

Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Today, this user created a second account, RKO 4 Life (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). He redirected the Steelerfan-94 userpage and talk pages to the new account's pages. Is this allowed? iMatthew (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what he is planning to do with it. You should ask him about that and tell him about the user account policy. It is most likely that the user just did not know about it. Regards SoArrr!Why 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be fine, long as the two be the same user. Users be able to do what they want. A note on User talk:RKO 4 Life 'bout it be good, though. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, after reviewing, I think he just did not know about changing usernames. You could tell him about that as well. Point is, you should ask the user first before posting it here. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to answer a question of his, "Is it ok?" iMatthew (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I think you should tell him to file a request at WP:CHU so that his old edits can be transferred to the new name. I am sure one of the admins there will be able to sort it out. At least of his new account has few edits worth keeping. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note this user has created sockpuppet accounts - see here. He has also had the DH Michaels (talk · contribs) account. I class that he has used five different accounts. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrr! Checkuser be determining that there is no abusive sock-puppetry going on here. Previous accounts have been declared, per policy, mateys, and this incident is well and truly in the past, and was debated publicly by the community on ANI at the time - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now he's going back to his Steelerfan-94 account... D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Chrishomingtang

This user continually reverts changes made on the article NBA records without any justification, despite numerous warning to stop these antics. The user is reverting against verifiable, sourced content, and does not appear to be willing to cooperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need any justification to revert banned user. Check the rules.—Chris! _ct 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this user suffers from the delusion that he is reverting a banned user. I have yet to see him provide some kind of justification for these beliefs against my edits made in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, User:TyrusThomas4lyf be blocked, not banned. Thar be a difference. Even if the IP be User:TyrusThomas4lyf, ye do not get to revert all 'is edits. WP:SSP be the place to go now, for sock puppets. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely at this point, TT4L can be considered community banned. Furthermore, this IP has been edit-warring on this page for two days without ever going to the talk page. I've explained to him what needs to happen for this change to be accepted (a reliable reference, consensus on the talk page) and he ignores and insults, exactly the way TT4L has done in the past. I'll ask again as I did above in the TT4L thread, can we please get someone to block the IP for edit warring or the page semi-protected to force a discussion on the talk page? Thanks in advance.

At Wikipedia:LTA, you will see the damages he has done. He had over 57 sockpuppets, several one indef blocked. So there is no point going through the time consuming WP:SSP. Also semi-protection will never work as he will move on to the next target.—Chris! _ct 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You suspecting someone of being another user (from one edit, no less, apparently) does not make it so. Come, what justification do you have for your suspicion? Please stop using your own delusions as a justification for violating the rights of other users.

Aye, thar be an edit war thar. I be protectin' the page for one week. Carry on the duel at the talk page. Ahoy, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence above compiled by an uninvolved editor strongly suggests this IP is a sock of TT4L. [50] I think we're bending over backwards to protect a banned editor once again. Dayewalker (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Just look at all the sockpuppet cases, evidences in Wikipedia:LTA, at the above thread, it is obvious that he is TyrusThomas4lyf. We shouldn't protect him. —Chris! _ct 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, I be blockin' the IP for 48 hours, based on the above. Ahoy, me hearties. lifebaka++ 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Lifebaka for blocking the sock. Since the sock's contributions are still up at the page, can we productive editors have the page unprotected to start the discussion? Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be done. Thar be no need for protection with one of th' warriors blocked, I be thinkin'. Raise me a flag if thar's more issues later. Down the hatch. lifebaka++ 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

user:RyanLupin and IP stalkers

RyanLupin (talk · contribs) The above user is being stalked by a range of IPs, mostly sexually, for example, this. Some of these IP edits have had to be oversighted they were that strong. They know very personal details about Ryan and have posted them onto Wikipedia. I have suggested WP:RTV to him but he does not want to leave the project - can't say I blame him, but a case like this is very serious. Any thoughts on what to do here? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If RyanLupin wants to carry on in an forthright manner, so should we. I suggest WP:RBI without any fuss (and keep an eye out if there are any obvious ranges we might tag?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the obvious choice... but it's the personal info thing that is chilling. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP posted a similar comment on J.delanoy's talk the other day. I'll see if I can find a diff. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: [51]. I suggest protecting J.delanoy's talk page so only registered users may edit it; there has been lots of vandalism and personal attacks on JD's talk page recently. SchfiftyThree 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hexhand

Since I participated in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe), I'd like others to look at this situation. The afd has been a bit heated at times and admin User:Dreadstar relisted after he previously closed it as a redirect and merge. In the current afd, Hexhand has responded to every participant that wasn't supporting a "keep". Hexhand and Dreadstar have discussed several points related to this afd. Today Hexhand placed notability tags on 5 articles Dreadstar had created-4 of them in 2006 and one in 2007. IHMO this is disruption to prove a WP:POINT and possibly a WP:STALK violation also. These articles were all tagged today within a 3-minute span: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Notices posted at the afd, and talk pages of Hexhand and Dreadstar. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all the above articles to the pre tagged version. I shall notify Hexhand of my actions, and this discussion, and comment upon his tagging. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I be thinking, this here may be a good taggin'. The article thar do be a bit shy on th' notabil'ty and references. Avast mateys, thar be a reef ahead! lifebaka++ 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis may be correct, me hearty, but tis be lookin' very pointy indeed! I be thinkin that tis be still yer primary concern! SoArrr!Why 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If every time anyone who challenged someone who disagreed with them became the subject of an ANI, we would have a never-ending tide of ANIs resulting from nearly every contested RfA, as well as most XfDs. While I can't say that Dreadstar will have enjoyed Hexhand's responses and actions, he has explained the issue of consistency. Making claims of stalking in this regard is rather questionable. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series, when coverage of the series thus far consists only of coverage of the pilot, is beyond me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(exX2)I tagged the articles because, in the course of the AfD, I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article. I decided that to better understand his point of view on the subject, I should see what articles he had worked on (all noting edits within the last few months, and not years, ago) and created where notability was on point. I found a surprising number of articles that would likely not survive an AfD themselves. After pointing this contradictory position in the AfD, I tried to figure out what to do with articles that were even less notable than the one Dreadstar wanted to have merged as non-notable on its own merits.

Rather than nominate the article examples for deletion, which I think would be retaliatory (or at the very least mean-spirited), I thought noting that they needed to be improved/expanded so as to improve their notability, so that someone else wouldn't come by and nom them on their own. The tagging was to mark the articles as needing improvement, not remove them. I took no action beyond that, have not followed Dreadstar's edits (beyind noting when he last worked upon the articles in question). At least one of the articles in question were worked on by Dreadstar as recently as June of this year.

I must confess that though I think Dreadstar seems to be a good person, I still don't understand his views on notability, and in fact find them contradictory. However, I don't think that tagging articles that I discover having notability issues to be stalking, as the goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Dreadstar and others would be able to address the notability issues and expand/improve the articles. I think it would be a POINT edit if the concerns weren't valid, which isn't the case here. The proof of that can be found in the fact that in all but one of the examples LessheardVanU pointed out, some improvement was offered by either Less, Lifebaka or Dreadstar himself. The articles still have some pretty big notability issues, but at least, they are better than they were before I tagged them. - Hexhand (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(and I just realized what day it was, after seeing Lifebaka's and SoWhy's pirate-y mode of speech!). - Hexhand (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JzG re "Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series..." Your response belongs at AfD, not here, and I think you may find that consensus appears to disagree with you on the matter. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hex-Dreadstar never said ALL pilots aren't notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, you're right, I'm being misquoted where Hexhand says, "I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article." I have never said that pilot articles aren't notable, what I did say was that not all pilots may have sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. I asked what criteria should be used to denote a notable pilot separate from its series, or if all pilots should have a standalone article [57][58][59]. If one is trying to "better understand" an editor's position, it's better to ask them rather than making pointed edits. Dreadstar † 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a major violation of POINT to me

[60] [61] [62] [63] [64]

In case an explanation is needed: somehow, Hexhand got around to putting notability tags on all these articles Dreadstar started or edits a lot??? By chance, no doubt [65].——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, I didn't say it happened by accident; I said that I noticed the articles while trying to glean Dreadstar's philosophy on notability, and decided to tag them because they weren't especially notable or cited. POINT would have been to nom them at AfD. The diffs you provided are not new links, but recreations of the ones that initiated the report. My tagging articles with little or no notability or citations is disruptive how, exactly? Are you suggesting that the notability of the articles tagged were in fact splendid articles chock full of citations? - Hexhand (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't an emergency, was it? You're an experienced user. If it wasn't POINT, you could have waited a couple days till any conflict was over. However, I will not assume bad faith, since I don't know what was in your mind. You might at least have known that this would increase the conflict a lot. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. I guess I should have - as you said - waited until the AfD was complete. It never occurred to me that the worst would be presumed of my behavior. When we (as editors) see something wrong in an article - any article - our first instinct is to attempt to fix it. that's just natural. I was cognizant that making too many edits to the articles would seem vindictive (and excessive cn tagging or AfD nom was out of the question), and truly felt that simply placing a notability tag on the articles needing serious expansion and citation was the least intrusive way to draw attention to them. It wasn't a POINT edit (and doesn't seem to fit the criteria of that anyway). That Dreadstar and others have addressed the tagging by improving the articles is proof somewhat of the validity of the tagging. I had actually planned on seeking out sources this weekend for some of the articles (Superpup had some interest), but then this came along. I am pretty hesitant to make any contribution at this point, as it might be misinterpreted in the worst possible light. - Hexhand (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirs for wrong spellings

Resolved

 – never mind--PaterMcFly (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys think of Special:Contributions/Pie4all88 this? If I read WP:REDIR correctly, it's not desirable to have a redir for every possible (wrong) spelling one could ever imagine. If there's no opposition, I'll request speeding all of these redirs.

I've left the user a message, but it seems he's offline now. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb

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

I have just reblocked WordBomb with email disabled due to email abuse. Predictable enough, under the circumstances, I guess. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You unblocked and immediately reblocked with email disabled. Now I understand what you are saying. I don't think there is anything to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with Neil Goldschmidt

This previous governor of Oregon, an influential politician, is now in disgrace because of the revelation of a previous sexual relationship with his children's babysitter when he was mayor of Portland, Oregon. In July, an edit war ensued over what to term this "sexual relationship". After page protection, a protracted, heated and sometimes nasty discussion, and then a cooling-off period, the page had reached a stable, agreed-upon state. I think. The edit war has started up again, this time instigated by an editor who seems to disagree with a certain involved editor's work in general, ignoring the previous consensus. I don't know if page protection is needed at this point, and I work closely with several of the involved editors, as this article falls under the purview of WikiProject Oregon, so I would like some fresh eyes to take a look at the problem. Let me know if you need diffs, etc. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Katr67 is correct. The consensus terminology was agreed with lots of discussion resulting in a solid verifiable compromise based on reliable sources.

This current situation is all coming from one previously inactive editor:

• Agnapostate (talk · contribs)

He clearly came here spoiling for a fight from his first edit to that article a few days ago, complete with antagonistic edit summary, followed by a string of other antagonistic comments on that talk page and various user pages, including this long soapbox comment that includes both political agenda and personal attacks, and even claims that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not a reliable source. On this additional soapbox, he says the Associated Press is not a reliable source.

There is no point to any of this, other than WP:POINT. No-one is interested in this fight, it's all coming from Agnapostate, he's fighting himself. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Agnapostate (talk · contribs) indefinitely for being a single-purpose, pro-pedophilia/"youth rights", edit-warring, POV-pushing account. The following edits show clear POV-pushing by the user: [66],[67] numerous times, [68], [69]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions[70] [71] [72], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[73] [74] [75], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[76] [77] [[78] [79] [80]. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Wikipedia as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times [81]. If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to a particular school, maybe someone - preferably local to the area - should contact the school. We had a problem here in Western Australia with what turned out to be a trio of vandals who were wreaking unholy havoc in a range of areas and had gotten well and truly ahead of themselves, and after the school intervened, all problems ceased.

I've blocked the account indef for block evasion per the above but I'm happy for any subsequent resolution of this matter to unblock the account - it's more a case of "this account should not be editing so we'll stop it from doing so". Orderinchaos 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the ranges here with the ones on Simple English, there is one stand out entry but the rest fall under the same ISP/location. 72.28.33.218 does not geolocate near the known location and would likely not match if checked. The ranges needed to shut this down are 70.146.192.0/18, 68.220.160.0/19 and 65.0.160.0/19. I would suggest having a CheckUser look at the ranges for collateral damage as this is taking out a major ISP in a fairly good sized US city. Creol (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone working on this idea? It would really help if he was at least slowed down. Dealing with this almost every day, including new registered accounts, is getting really old. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive since new suggestions had been added

Have another one: Bambiisadinosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have this over on Simple English Wikipedia... obviously, being smaller we can see articles as they come up. He'll often copy and paste stuff from here, along with all the templates. We block/delete on sight. Majorly ^talk 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably explain his creatingthis. I usually spot him when he starts in on one of his usual articles, but by then he's often hit another 10-20. *sigh* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is up with Wikipedia's servers today? Anyways, I thought somewhat interesting to note that I used to teach in the elementary school adjacent to Lincoln Middle. Still live in the area. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity

Seems to be a long-standing and heated edit war both in the article and on its talk page. Really could use some sorting out. JNW (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would request to please look into this issue. The editor Goingoveredge is choking other editors and not letting any discussion to take place on article talkpage. Additionally he is using tags and wikipedia policy keywords against other editors unwarranted. He seems adamant on pursuing his own POV and deleting everything else on the article talkpage. All my attempts to have civil discussion with him have failed. Please also see the RFC on Goingoveredge for some more information on his activities. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked Roadahead and Goingoveredge both for edit warring, but beyond their accusations and bad blood there may be some actual shenanigans that could use sorting out, or at least extra eyes.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, is about a book that takes a strong POV, so it's not a complete surprise that extremely partisan editors are working on the article. Due to the edit warring, the article has been full-protected twice in the last few weeks. I suggest that the article subject might not meet the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books), and an AfD of the article might be a reasonable solution. (We have no article on the book's author, G. B. Singh, and it's not common for a book to be notable while its author is not). EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

subtracting all the vitriol, this is about a crappy book that is pushed by one ideological group and vilified by another. Goingoveredge is right in stating that the book is crap, but he is wrong in prolongued rants about it. It is enough to cite the issues raised in the reviews cited. As EdJohnston states, it may be worth an AfD to look into whether the book satisfies WP:BK in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti

This user is edit warring on multiple articles with multiple users. He has a consistent pattern of making 3 reverts, then sitting and waiting till a few minutes into the next 24 hour period and resumes. Shortly after a 3RR report with a result of (no violation no action) that can be seen here he/she goes to the same article and reverts the same user literally minutes into the next 24 hour period. He/she is doing this on multiple articles and has recieved several recent warnings regarding edit warring. Is gaming the 3RR rule like this acceptable? I myself was involved in an edit war with this user on Thousand Foot Krutch which ended by me self reverting my last edit just to put an end to the edit warring. Some other examples of the same behavior can be seen here, here, here. This is just some of the most recent ones, it would appear Prophaniti has a long history of doing this. He calls the other editors edits "vandalism" in content disputes often as well. Basically I just want help explaining that it isn't ok to edit war just because you are "right" and the other editor is "wrong". I'm not asking for a block or anything, just think Prophanity should stop edit warring so often. I also want to make it clear that I'm aware my behavior on Thousand Foot Krutch was totally unacceptable, and that I did violate 3RR and self reverted when I realized I had. Landon1980 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point about Prophaniti and the Hed PE article. He made a fourth revert shortly after the 3RR case was closed in his favor. I've blocked Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio)

Resolved

 – rouge admins abusively applying WP:BLP in defiance of brand new users. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

can someone nuetral please take a look at alex jones (radio). There are a few administrators on there that are using there powers to turn the article into the alex jones fan club page. Info on current events, no matter how well sourced are being removed for BLP reasons. even thought they are on the news, filmed by multiple sources.. anything remotely negative is being deleted by obvious fans/non nuetral parties. please see now the page is protected for blp issues and a whole section that has been worked on for weeks (and all ready widdled down to the bare minimum) has been totally removed. something needs to be done or this whole page should be deleted as it is 100% biased and BLP is being way over used.. not to mention they are using alex jones own network of websites as sources on half the items on the article. thanks for looking into it.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on the article talk page? At a glance, it sounds like a content dispute, better taken to dispute resolution, not an issue for administrator intervention. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is concern about administrators misusing their tools to try and push a point of view that goes beyond a content dispute.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now what this is about, I think. It appears to be under discussion on the talk page (and through the next several sections there), and the admins involved are (from my view, at least) enforcing BLP because the sources being used for the section in question are not very good. (YouTube videos, blogs, et al, from the looks of things.) Due to repeated BLP concerns from the sources being suspect, the page has been protected. Seems reasonable enough to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs on Shark

A number of IPs have vandalized the same thing on shark. I wonder if they are sockpuppets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have concerns that they are sockpuppets of a certain user, you should list them at WP:SSP. Otherwise you should warn them and report them to WP:AIV once they were warned enough. If the vandalism is too much, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogger3140

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm coming here because I don't really know what to think in regards to this user.

Frogger had joined awhile back, he's been here for at least a few months to my knowledge, and while I have, in the beginning at least, tried to help him learn what not to do here, per his recent edits, it still seems that he doesn't quite understand.

His first few edits are mainly to userpages, which could be said are mistakes, where he adds a cabal template to various users' userpages, as seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4. In later edits, he continues to edit others' userspaces: 1, and 2. He even claims that the user in question(for the last edit) has said it was okay. When searching through, I found no such thing(you can check if you don't believe me). He made this claim to me, and an admin I believe, as can be seen here as the admin responds, telling him he cannot.

His editing from thereon(and I mean for the amount of time starting around the time of the above edits, and the most recent stream of edits) appeared to be normal, however his most recent edits have vastly deviated from any kind of constructive editing. Even though he was warned in the past about editing userpages that are not in his his one userspace, he has done so here, and again here, even when told not to several times by the user who's userspace the page was under. This happened several times. The user in question has also created several POV categories, which of course have been deleted. Last but not least, the recent edit found here, of which the user has yet to explain.

In the past I have suggested this user apply for mentoring. I don't know if they have, but it doesn't appear they have, according to his history.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to the belief that this account is on a mission to see how much and for how long they can get away with. I only skimmed the contrib history, so perhaps someone can point to any constructive edits - I certainly missed them. I also have the suspicion that they are GHawPgger wannabe (without the suss). I would not missed them if they were indeff'd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Whotheman2006

• Whotheman2006 (talk · contribs)
• BoA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This generally uncivil user has reached final warning stage for repeatedly removing a sourced statement (BoA official website saying that her favourite musicians include Britney Spears and Brian McKnight) because he doesn't want the singer "compared to that skank with the baby" [82]. Could we have a block? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I decline to block for this single incident. The user needs to be told about Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and asked to refactor their remark. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility is an aside; the report was about the repetitive arbitrary deletion of solidly sourced material [83][84][85][86][87][88] with the promise to "do this to the end of time" [89] - which has continued even after a uw-delete4 warning. The remark about being "a TOOL!!!" was Whotheman2006's, so he needs no apology. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did block - for a week - when I saw that edit; I don't think such comments should be tolerated, and the tariff was determined with regard to Whotheman2006's disregard to consensus in the BoA edit war. Once a day since the beginning of September is not the action of someone who is interested in community editing practices. However, if anyone feels the block is wrong in fact or duration please feel free to change it without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed

Breaking news this morning, a plane crash killed 4 unknown people, and injured Blink 182 ex-drummer Travis Barker and Nicole Ritchie's ex-husband DJ AM. Eyeballs will be needed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles look OK at the moment. It's not breaking news where I am. I guess you are saying to watch the article for insertion of rumours on their current conditions, and not to allow updates in their conditions without a news source to back it up. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying given that they're relatively popular celebrities, and Barker has had numerous publicized death "hoaxes" in the past, eyeballs are needed to ensure that references are properly followed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the speculation in the articles that Perry Farrell and Gavin DeGraw were on the plane, and that several IPs had posted the fact of their deaths before confirming that fact, I semi-protected the articles for 48 hours. Did that before seeing this thread, though - so if I jumped the gun, please revert me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing's edit warring continuing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think JzG's note on his user page resolved this. Docu (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

As the previous thread was closed early, I'm opening new thread about the above and his recent edits, such as this and that. -- 14:41, 2008 September 20. -- User:Docu

Since you persist in wanting to continue to discuss User:Pigsonthewing's edits, despite there being no obvious link to the previous issue of his userpage, I've moved this down to create a new section. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I left a note on his talk, [90]. Now, Docu you go this way, he can go that way, and the two of you can leave each other alone. First one to start on at the other again gets blocked. Fair? Guy (Help!) 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Docu's refusal to let things go is becoming tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Suicide threat being dealt with

Some of you may have noticed the suicide threat at [91]. This is just a note to say that I did the checkuser and am following this one up with the relevant authorities - and to ask please don't delete the edit, I've referred to it in emails so they can see what I'm talking about :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do things my way or I will kill myself"??? That reminds me of this part of an intro from a Tom Lehrer song. He said he had received a letter that read, "Darling, I love you. Please marry me or I will kill myself." He was rather disturbed at that, until he looked closer and noticed the letter was addressed to "Occupant". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since then, someone blanked the page that the suicide threat was in, but has not deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Noroton's disruptive editing has made work on various presidential election-related articles just about impossible (see Talk pages of Bill Ayers for a start). This has gone on for months, and instead of improving with experience and coaching, his work has deteriorated. He has shown no interest in encyclopedic facts, structure, style or wording. Instead, he has a clear personal agenda and searches for 'sources' that support his virulent anti-Obama attack mode, no matter how fringe (or second- or third- or fourth-hand 'quotes') they may be. He completely ignores the spirit of Wikipedia and instead looks for 'loopholes' to justify his POV edits. This simply can't continue. We're getting to the end of September and he's diverting editors who could be doing work elsewhere into constantly reverting his edits and discussing with him (for the umpteenth time) variations on the theme of what 'encyclopedic' means. Other editors have simply given up in disgust and left. If he's blocked until mid-November, it's possible he will come to his senses after the election is over. Right now, he seems to believe he's on some mission to save the world from encyclopedic editing. I think we're at the end of the road right now, and blocking is the only thing left. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this thread, although I don't have much time today, I'll be back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning (that is, about 8 hours or 18 hours from now). I'd like administrators to look at Flatterworld's comments at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and Violence (this diff [92]) and Talk:Bill Ayers#First paragraph (this diff [93]) and see if Flatterworld is not acting more like a troll than a constructive contributor. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about information previously not considered (which is what I'm also trying to do at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC) and Flatterworld, on the Bill Ayers talk page, is immediately trying to turn a civil discussion into a mudwrestling match. I've certainly let Flatterworld get under my skin in the past, but I'm really trying to avoid responding in kind to impolite comments. Please help me to do so. Please remind Flatterworld that working with others in a civil way, discussing new facts and how they may be helpful in developing articles is what talk pages are supposed to do, and working together to reach consensus is what we're supposed to be doing to build the encyclopedia. And please tell him that if he can't work that way, he will be banned from Bill Ayers and related topics. Because, really, he's being a pest and he seems to think it's proper behavior.[94] I asked MastCell for help here, but he seems to be away from the keyboard. This kind of abuse is depressing. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll be making new proposals soon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC with information previously not considered by editors on that page. Some editors interested in shutting down discussion now while their own POV is reflected on the pages of Weatherman (organization)-related articles might find it useful to review WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if no administrator is willing to do so on their own it is time for a community topic ban. For my part, after trying for months I am more or less giving up on interacting with this tendentious editor. At the same time he is mangling some important articles, and I do not want to let him bully me into letting him have his way with the encyclopedia. I took a bad faith report he had filed against me here as an occasion to file the content-oriented Obama/Weathermen/terrorism RfC here where we conclude conclude once and for all in an orderly way whether his content position has consensus (it obviously does not), reach a result, and stick with it. But he is gumming up the process with procedural game-playing on the RfC. After utterly failing to get consensus for calling various living people terrorists and murderers, he refuses to accept the result, announces he has won, forks the discussion to re-propose the exact same thing again and again edit wars BLP vios on the affected articles in the middle of the RfC discussion to the point where one is protected and another currently in a state of edit warring. This continues a months-long campaign of BLP vios, edit warring, game playing to the point of bad faith, personal attacks, incivilities, fabricated complaints against other editors, and dozens and dozens of rejected proposals all on a single POV point. It may not be too late to simply close the RfC as no consensus, revert the edits he has warred into place, and start an RfC or other behavioral process from there if he does not comply. But he obviously is not complying with consensus or our behavioral policies, and he is demonstrating a propensity for messing up RfCs, so that time is probably now. There are 2-3 other editors of dubious legitimacy and an equal number of new SPAs making the same point who will probably show up here or anywhere else we try to deal with them, and who themselves probably should be dealt with as well. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Resolved

 – article indefinitely protected by User:Slakr

[95] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, could an admin please take a look at the Bill Ayers article, in view of calming an edit war over there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war that you and Scjessey have provoked and participated in. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A misleading non-sequitur attack from one of the problem editors I refer to above. I'm fully expecting plenty of tit-for-tat counterattacks - I've been subjected to them as long as I've been trying to keep peace on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino and user:Kww

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Dispute resolution is indeed the avenue for the underlying factual dispute, but not for the name calling and insults.Kww (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped. Had not realized that dispute resolution was supposed to be the first avenue for dealing with people violating WP:NPA. Seems a strange path to go down for obvious policy violations.Kww (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino

This user seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept of WP:NPA, judging from his comments on my talk page. I asked him not to call me lazy, and his response was to switch to army brat. Not the worst of personal attacks, but I'd appreciate some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

user:Kww

This user seems to be a pain in the ass without sense of humour. It's a minor incident in a specific case, no other problem in here, I've seen - and done - much worse!... I'm the one who needs some assistance not to be unjustifiedly adverted or worse!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.-M. Cupertino (talk • contribs)

Response

You should, if you have any problems with each other, consider dispute resolution. This does not need any administrator intervention. SoWhy 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article:Critisms of Facebook

Something's happening on there which is not yet a proper edit war, but at least two IPs are constantly removing well-referenced material with controversial views of Facebook, despite of reverts by registered users. I've reverted two such deletions including citations of The Guardian (which were called "unreliable"). I'm not going to call that Facebook is trying to clean their slate here, but the whole affair smells bad. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <- For reference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think semi-protection, requested at WP:RFPP, should take care of the problem, as we can expect that anyone trying to clean their slate will have countless IPs to try with. SoWhy 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I requested semi-protection for that one. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Historian19

Please look at User:Historian19 edits. This editor appeared a few days ago, is making hundred of edits with no references/citations/any other apparent factual basis, many of which are immediately reverted by other editors who cannot keep up with this ongoing activity, which may simply be vandalism. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, you should use {{user|Historian19}} in such cases to automatically add links for the user (i.e. Historian19 (talk · contribs)). Then, if you are correct and those edits are vandalism, you should use some warning messages and report the user to WP:AIV once he received a fourth level warning. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)