Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Wikipedia," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Wikipedia mirror, it can't be used to reference a Wikipedia article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH ^ping! 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.[1]. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Wikipedia compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Wikipedia is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action [5]. While you pretend you "push[ed] for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of [[WP:BLP|BLP] content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Wikipedia, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac (Doc), it is unfortunate that your involvement was based on a personal invitation to comment by Delicious carbuncle. Given that you portrayed yourself as an administrator who may choose to investigate these claims against me by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and chose not to declare an interest, could you please now confirm the nature of your pre-existing relationship or collaboration history on and off wikipedia with Delicious carbuncle? Ash (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? I indicated that you might not view me as neutral here. What exactly are you alleging now?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe I have "alleged" anything, I apologise if you were able to infer anything to that effect or if it appears to be nonsense to you. I asked for clarification as you said, "I may have time to look closely myself later...". You also stated that I may not see you as sufficiently neutral, this was a statement about me, not a statement about whether you have a pre-existing interest. When I later realized that you had been invited to comment here by Delicious carbuncle, I was taken aback as I had the impression that you were referring to our previous discussions about your use of language that has offended other editors. Ash (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the problem. My only "pre-existing interest" is a hatred of people playing fast and loose with BLP sourcing - which is probably why DCarb approached me. Is that a problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Vladimir Correa, all the above contested sources have been removed. The article did not rely on these sources though any editor is free to re-add them, and if they wish to be super-civil about it, they can add some appropriate rationale on the article talk page. I see little benefit in continuing this thread or explaining why Scott Mac's "hatred" of certain people may be a problem. Ash (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Since some editors seem to be reluctant to view the references associated with gay porn performers -- some of which maybe "not safe for work" -- I picked two articles on UK bathhouses, Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch. These articles were created and expanded almost solely by Ash, which avoids the issue of Ash sourcing the text of other contributors.

In Chariots Shoreditch:

• The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.
• The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.
• The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

In Pleasuredrome:

• A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
• The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
• The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to "The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasuredrome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also making a mountain out of a molehill. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment does not accurately present the standards for the use of self-published claims, which are found here [6]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that Pleasuredome is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. This entire exercise has been yet another WP:Drama fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. Civil vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like DC picked apart these two articles, finding lots of poor sourcing and your response is to pooh-pooh it. Not helpful. I suggest that some interested party go stub out everything cited to the problematic sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Lar on this one - if sources have been forged that is rather large issue for the project and needsto be dealt with as productively as possible, soon. - Schrandit (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that this entire thread is designed to disparage an editor not because any content they edit is untrue but that it is focussed on gay sexual activities. Why Delicious carbuncle is so focussed on wikihounding editors who work in these subject areas is for others to judge for themselves, a visit to Wikipedia Review may help. That they feel it is their right and duty to publicly flog and enact their pound of flesh seems to be the actual underlying issue. The oft-bandied BLP flag of concern rings hollow when the fact remains that person X is the same person X who indeed does gay porn. This all digresses from the fact that we, of course, want high quality sources but this "evidence" suggesting that a company's <ZOMG!> paid advertisement used to support information about their services is somehow fraudulent remains ridiculous. Obviously it would be better to use an independent source however statements by the subject of an article are considered reliable as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banjeboi

Incidentally, does anyone have a copy of the fifth edition of "The Rough Guide to London" by Rob Humphreys & Judith Bamber handy? I've asked Benjiboi to scan page 508 for me, but he has refused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you placed a request at WP:REX? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Wikipedia review forum, it appears that Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald and Lar are members. This may not be an complete list and yet seems to be most of the contributors keeping this discussion going. As this may represent a direct or indirect form of canvassing or lobbying against gay-sexuality related articles, could someone please confirm what is going on and if this mets the guidelines for ANI discussion? Ash (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, please stop trying to slander my good name here by trying to associate me with controversial websites (although if Lar and Scott MacDonald -- both of whom are trusted admins -- frequent the site, I suppose I would be in good company). This appears to be yet another attempt to direct attention away from your misuse of sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you are the right person to answer my question. I did not realize that Wikipedia Review was considered controversial here. As for interpreting my question as an attempt to slander your good name, I shall resist pointing out the obvious. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed responses to the trivial questions raised about sources have been answered on Talk:Pleasuredrome#ANI_comments and Talk:Chariots_Shoreditch#ANI_comments rather than extending this dubious thread. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple examples of an editor found to be misrepresenting sources and no action taken? This is not a routine editing matter. It's one of the most basic violations of the minimum trust and responsibility Wikipedia needs to maintain credibility and accuracy and to protect living people from harm. This is not a matter for routine editing (i used to try to fix these problems; after getting caught up in "edit wars" with others that oppose basic minimum standards of sourcing and verifiability and being bludgeoned with brainless "AGF" mantras, I gave up.) The mind boggles. (Oh yeah: I am not now nor have ever been a member of Wikipedia Review, not that it's remotely relevant.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that I have been misrepresenting sources. Questions were put forward about some of the sources contained in 3 of the articles I created up to 4 months ago. These questions have been answered and could have easily been addressed by friendly discussion on the article talk pages at any time in the months after they were created rather than escalating directly to ANI. I have made 22,000+ edits in total and 8,000+ of these in the last 3 months. What you see is a fishing expedition, primarily kept going by one editor who has raised 2 previous failed ANIs against me and is aware of pre-existing preparations to start an RFC/U against them and has a current WQA raised against them due to civility problems (see User:Ash/analysis). I suggest you check my edit history for yourself if you remain concerned, I would be happy to discuss any suggestions for improvement you might have on my talk page. Ash (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And i've made about 7,500 edits to wikipedia. Not a single one of those edits has used a false citation for anything. Your defense seems to be that of your edits reviewed by carbuncle (i rather doubt he's reviewed them all) only three have involved misattribution. That's no defense at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, my "defense" is that none involves misattribution. Please check the facts. It is quite normal for an article to improve and citations to also be improved. This should not lead to hysterical allegations of perpetrating fraud and is not the way to use ANI. Ash (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This "defense" is surpassingly ridiculous. It's well-established that you misrepresented sources (presenting claims in a advertisement as though they were standard editorial content of the magazine in which the advertising appeared; making unfounded claims as to the source of information found on a retail site you added as a reference). The bottom line is that you regularly add content to articles with referencing and sources that fail WP:RS and WP:BLP, then attack the motivations of editors who challenge your practices rather than addressing the substantive issues. Your insinuations above that two respected editors like Lar and Scott MacDonald are part of some homophobic cabal based at Wikipedia Review, without a shred of evidence, are fairly compelling demonstrations of your lack of good faith and of the vacuousness of your "defense." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, please finish preparing your RFC/U and file it. I withdrew my MfD of User:Ash/analysis only because you claimed that you were about to file something. That was a week ago. WP:USER specifies that such pages are only permitted provided they "will be used in a timely manner". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first be civil enough to co-operate with the open WQA raised by another editor. I note that you only withdrew your MfD after unanimous feedback that you were in the wrong. In that MfD you were advised by one of the contributors that MfD "is not a cudgel for personal abuse"; the same applies to the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. I do not see why you should be the one setting a timetable here. Ash (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not setting a timetable. If you are not ready to file the RFC/U, you can ask for the page to be deleted until such time as you are. Personally, I would prefer that you go ahead and file it, so we can get it over and done with. Please see the new MfD here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for this subject. you've raised the issue with another MfD and once again, with this edit YOU have been the one to move a discussion off topic. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Core policy violations being ignored?

Back in December, sourcing issues were noted in an article under discussion at AfD. On the BLPN thread raised by User:Cirt, the admin who closed the AfD, I took the time to go through some of the citations used in the article and point out exactly what was wrong with them. No one, including Cirt or Ash, who added most of those citations, bothered to fix them or deal with the underlying issue of using references to source facts not contained in those references.

I brought that discussion up again here because it seemed relevant. I took the time to find further evidence of Ash's fraudulent use of citations, which I laid out as clearly and concisely as possible with diffs and links to the sources. At least two admins have commented here that this needs to be dealt with, yet this thread is languishing here while Ash continues to create and expand BLPs. What needs to be done to get some action here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The thread is only "languishing" because you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are keeping it from being automatically archived.

Creating sub-threads is an obvious tactic to making this ANI look more substantial than it really is.

There has been no evidence that I have deliberately perpetrated fraud.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original issues with the Dave Awards citations are being addressed by dialogue with the original publisher, so that thread is closed.

All the other "examples" you put forward have been addressed on their respective article talk pages (which should have been the first port of call rather than ANI) and so their threads are closed.

Should any administrator care to look at your and HW's user talk pages it is evident that neither of you are impartial when is comes to the topic of gay pornography related articles, with various complaints about inappropriate PRODs and AFDs being raised. My work over the last 2 months to create a series of reasonable start-level articles for gay pornographic actors appears to be the real issue that you have with my existence on Wikipedia, a task that I started after you purged all "non-bluelink" names from the list of actors in gay porn films. It is notable that you have not raised any questions about any edit I have made more recently than November/December 2009. Considering my 8,000 edits since then, and my lengthy track record of collaboration, it seems highly unlikely that any independent admin would find anything of interest in the claims of fraud based on the thin evidence you provided so far. I suggest you let this ANI die to a lack of anything for an admin to do, just as with the previous poorly judged and inflammatory two ANIs you have raised against me since I started contributing to the genre of gay pornography related BLPs in January this year. Ash (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Your response to criticism of your sourcing and editing practices is, consistently, to smear those who don't share your views with groundless accusations of bias and bad faith, rather than addressing the substantive problems. One needs look no further than this thread; when "independent admins" (whose input you claim to ask for) like Lar and Scott MacDonald weighed in against your position, you posted baseless insinuations of their being part of a homophobic cabal based at the Wikipedia Review. And this thread would have been closed and archived if you and your partners in promotional editing hadn't prolonged it yourselves, more than once, by posting phony attacks on other editors.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. I have made no mention of a "homophobic cabal". It is a fact that Lar and Scott MacDonald are active on Wikipedia Review and that the ANI that Delicious carbuncle raised against me recently about gay pornography related articles was discussed on http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28677 which would have raised it for the attention of Wikipedia Review members. These are facts, not hypothesis or attacks. Ash (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, you seem to be intent on raising references to Wikipedia Review today. How is this relevant to the issue of your misuse of sources? Or the lack of admin attention here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Just would like to point out that I was the one who actually brought this to WP:BLPN, in the first place. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa. The purpose of which was for me to try to gather additional eyes and input on the article, and hopefully have others address concerns. It is a shame that individuals above are unable to deal with each other in discussion in a polite, kind and courteous manner. However, I am glad that at the very least my WP:BLPN posting had the intended affect of drawing additional input to the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I noted above that you were the editor who started the BLPN thread. If you look at the history of the article you will note that nothing of substance changed between the end of that thread and the start of this one, so I don't think your posting had the desired effect. I, too, regret the state of polite discourse here, but do you have anything to say about the actual issue, which is the misuse of sources? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there a thread at WP:RSN about sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there wasn't. Please read at least the opening statement of this section if you don't understand what the issue is here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be more polite and kind and less brusque. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, as stated in the Correa sub-thread above, you will find stated on Talk:Vladimir Correa that all the contested sources were removed some six days ago. Nobody involved in raising comments on ANI was interested in discussing the details with me at the time on the article talk page. Cheers Ash (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I apologise if you found my comments to be impolite, but I think you have mistaken my tersenesses for something else. I'm puzzled by both your reaction to my comment and your lack of substantive reply. Am I missing something here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the tone of this thread I think it best to defer to others to comment, as I had previously and appropriately done when I started a thread at WP:BLPN specifically to grab extra eyes on the situation. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DC, baiting Cirt on their user talk page (see diff) for their comments here was highly inappropriate. Ash (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike

Return of blocked sockfarmer

Resolved

Editor in question blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Entire section has been moved to WP:AN as a general behavioral/status question without a specific "incident" to support being here.
Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. Beyond My Ken

Mbz1 is at it again

Will somebody please give Mbz1 (talk · contribs) something stronger than a cup of tea? Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors (we were all told not to have anything to do with one another). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama, especially the "Temporary topic ban" section.

Now that the ban has ended, Mbz1 awarded a barnstar to another editor in which she referred to Factsontheground as "lies-on-the-ground"[7]. She left a series of nasty messages at User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is not a forum related to a five-day-old message. When Georgewilliamherbert left two messages there for FoTG, Mbz1 added an unnecessary taunt. When I removed it, she restored it. Twice.

Mbz1 is growing emboldened by the fact that her behavior seems to be sanctioned by the admins and others who watch this page. Is somebody willing to stand up and tell her, No!, you can't insult, offend, and taunt other editors? Or is this sort of behavior okay now? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly that is not ever warrant a response, but in the last few minutes Malik Shabazz violated two wikipedia policies 3 times:

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO, and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner"

threatened me with the "perma-ban" in the violation of WP:TPNO in particular: * Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you

Looks like Shabazz forgot to add that that my message he reverted was posted in response to that: Factsontheground wrote about me: I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda " with no reason whatsoever.

Of course I would not have objected, if factsonground removed my message from the talk page.Shabazz should not have done that.

For the record factsonground did not remove my message, and instead has responded calmly to Georgewilliamherbert, Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me.

About "nasty messages" here's another thread wich explains the things.

Something else should be mentioned. Shabazz writes: "Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors" . There's a mistake in that statement. We all were banned from interacting with each other. Please see here for example.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your use of TPO is false. Funny how you use it to remove attacks on yourself by other editors, such as Vix, but when you yourself are the one making the attacks, you claim otherwise. Mal's removal of your personal attacks has not violated TPO. Remember, Mb, the behavior of others does not excuse your own. You were in the wrong for attacking Facts, and for continuing to restore the attacks. It's time to admit it, and cease.

Secondly, mistake or not. The point still remains. You were banned from interacting with others because of personal attacks and sniping. Immediately after the ban, what do you do? You personally attack and snipe.

Admins, I implore you. You have the power to make this stop, and this user obviously is not going to stop unless blocked. She's made that crystal clear.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, he didn't violate TPO with the warning of a perma-ban. Admins are well within their rights to threaten problematic editors who refuse to follow the rules with blocks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969, would you be so kind to please spell out what of my messages that I left at factsonground's talk page you consider to be PA? I mean let us all laugh not only me. :) In a meantime please kindly stop wikihounding me all over the places May I please ask you to ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely ? Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I am one of the others that watch this page, but I was sorry I didn't manage to get a comment in at ANI see this. There does seem to be a bit of a conspiracy to "get" Mbz1. I find it interesting that a user was allowed to template someone's talk page something like a dozen times in half as many hours, with the templated user asking that the behavior cease, and this is not considered harassment. Over the last couple of weeks Mbz1 has been harassed on her talk page, on others' talk pages, been put up for all kinds of wiki-charges (sock puppet, 3R, editwarring and now a second ANI) by editors with a particular POV. The behavior of editors and admins alike to Mbz1 has just been abominable. If what Mbz1 has said is true, that she has only recently begun editing in the Israel-Palestine area, and that most of her edits before that were related to her magnificent photographs which she gives freely to the Project, then all this harassment is in fact against WP:BITE. I also wanted to add to the last ANI the fact that I thought that the administrator User:Breein1007 did exactly the right thing by removing a false accusation against User:Mbz1 -- that was exactly the appropriate thing to do. User:Malik Shabazz on the other hand, admonished the editor, but left the false accusation up. This in an Afd that was brought against a page started by Mbz1 and filed by aforementioned User:Factsontheground within hours of its creation. I am willing to bet big money that Facts had dealings with Mbz1 in a prior article in which he felt he was frustrated in his editing by user MBz1 and consequently has been dogging her at other articles. Malik seems to be supporting accusations of lack of etiquette against Mbz1, at the same time not considering the behavior of Facts with respect to Mbz1. To my mind if Malik had been operating with fairness toward Mbz1 he would never have allowed a false accusation against her all the while knowing it was false. Thus I see him as part of the problem, obviously following her contributions, hounding her with yet another lawsuit which the community has already said it is not interested in. I think that user:Malik Shabazz should not WP:BITE and take a step back from this engagement. He is the more senior editor, an administrator, and he should know better. It looks to me like this suit was brought as a n attempt to harass and entrap another user with whom, incidently or not, he does not share a POV in the I-P area. Stellarkid (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see the post where Malik Shabazz threatens to ask for a permaban at ANI. That is quite a bit "stronger than a cup of tea." Stellarkid (talk)

Err, Stellarkid I'm not an admin. But thanks anyway for the kind words :P Breein1007 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Breein, I don't know where I got that thought either. A "senior moment"? Anyway if you ever think you want to be one, I promise to vote for you. I think you were smack on. Stellarkid (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, isn't that a bunch of BS. You've been here since early 2009, yet you've only contributed to this page 113 times. You say you watch this page, but I'm sure, anyone that has watched this page would know, it is very, very difficult to sort through the torrent of edits that this page receives in the watchlist. Let us also not forget that you call Breein an admin, despite the fact that they have not been here that long, do not have admin privileges, and do not even have rollback. In fact, your praise of this user that you know absolutely nothing about leads me to believe that you two are related.. somehow. I also love how you completely fail to address all the attacks Mb has put against people. Your styles are remarkable similar.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Scratching this entire post instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is really very little in your post I care to respond to, but I will say one thing only. I spent several hours looking at the last ANI report, going over the diffs and going back and forth to pages in my attempt to understand what was going on. It is a little convoluted I grant you, but it can be sorted out if one cares to. I happen to care to since I happen to like User:mbz1. I guess you are planning on going for another fishing expedition at checkuser? Any objective person should be able to see in a flash that are styles are far from "remarkable similar' [sic].Stellarkid (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, this isn't about WP:BITE and it isn't about Palestine or Israel. It's about Mbz1 and her behavior. This edit summary is a perfect example. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have explained to admin my edit summary here, and he sees no problems with that. I am not sure why you do? You do not want to look as Daedalus969, do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And now Shabazz is adding to WP:Drama by collecting the troops :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at that edit summary and have to agree that Mbz1 dealt with it appropriately. If she wants to call something nonsense on her talk page I certainly think she has the right to do so it being turned into a capital offense. I notice that Daedalus969 has no problem calling others' contributions BS without getting a reprimand. It is hard to see you as evenhanded. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not "collecting the troops". Following the instructions at the top of the page: "You must notify any user that you discuss." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your choice of title of this ANI report is in itself leading. "at it again"? This falls in line with your re-insertion of inflammatory and false information into the Afd after it was appropriately removed. I had initially thought you had only not removed it, but in looking further I see that you actively attempted to maintain this libelous material along with every other editor here who is voting to sanction Mbz1. [8]. Mbz1 (and Breein) had every right to remove such material from the Afd, per WP:TPO, and I see your participation here as exacerbating the issues here. Stellarkid (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling your contributions BS. I'm calling your refusal to see that Mb has insulted users, and that Mb refuses to stop insulting users is bad and unacceptable, BS. I'm calling the fact that this report is about Mb's recent behavior, not that stuff that was a week ago that you brought up, BS. Behavior of others does not excuse the behavior of yourself. Stuff that happened a week ago has no bering on the fact that Mb was banned from interacting with Facts, and right off the bat at the end of the ban, they proceed to personally attack that very user again. That's what I call BS.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the fishing expedition, it seems odd that you would do as much research as you say, yet miss the fact that Bree isn't an admin. Other than that, I'll retract the accusation for now. As you can see, by this edit, it is struck through above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment There are so much more behind the story. If there's is/are some fair administrators, who have a time and a wish to hear my side of the story, I am more than willing, and more than ready to provide all the differences and explanations for each and every one of them at my talk page step by step, yet I see no reason to post it here. That's why I am banning myself from posting to AN/I for the next 72 hours, and I will respect that ban, unless I would be asked to comment on something in particular by somebody, except Daedalus969 of course. Here's my last wish :) before I leave AN/I: No matter what happened please, please, please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely. I am begging you! And with that, please have a nice talk, everybody :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Comment by unomi

I was very briefly involved with the last ANI bruhaha on this, I believe all my comments were to the effect that these editors should try to stay clear of each other and that mbz should contact an admin if problems continued.

I am very dismayed to see that Mbz1 chooses to taunt and poison the well wrt factsontheground:

• March 18:PA in ES.
• March 18: Templates a regular, even though mbz1 was fresh off an ANI where mbz1 stated that this was unwelcome.
• March 18: accusations of intimidation is apparently better.
• March 18: In an ES of post to LessHeard VanU factonground should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later.
• March 18: Unnecessary taunting.

General Inflammation:

• March 17 practically everything that factsontheground and daedalus969 are doing is "a pointless mess". Glad somebody understood it at least :).

• March 18 Awards barnstar to NuclearWarfare with digs at Daedalus969.

General Responses:

• March 17: Responds to GWHs suggestion with Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about.

• March 18: Responds to LessHeard VanU's suggestion with I see no reason to respond the nonsense.

• Mbz1 is also maintaining a page of perceived wrongs yet has not at this point stated that they are preparing for a RFC/U

It does not strike as though the editor in question is acting in a manner that is consistent with our behavioral policies. It also seems unlikely that the editor is able to interact with peers in a positive and cooperative fashion as it relates to I/P or middle east articles. Unomi (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, something which addresses the main issue at hand, with evidence no less.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some notes by editors purporting to be neutral

Bree and Stellar both purport to be neutral in this case, and they both purport to have seen the ANI thread because they are regularly on ANI. However, they have been in contact with Mb prior:

• Bree's message from Mb
• Stellar's message from Mb

The point here is that there is a chance both these users thus put Mb's talk page on their watchlist, and only found this ANI report, and the last one, because of this.

The same for Avenue (talk · contribs).

But the above is not the first messages Mb has sent to these users. She has been in contact with them for awhile, dating back to January 25, 2010 for Bree and February 27, 2010 for Stellar.

As to neutrality, take this interesting edit. Not surprising that they come to Mb's defense, and obviously, per this, it is obvious they didn't just stumble upon this thread as they purport.

Lastly, here is an interesting diff between Stellar and Mbz1:

• More insults, calling other its and talking about indefinitely banning them

If only Bree and Stella had the courtesy to come forward with their contact with the user, unlike Facts here who, right off the bat, posted that he had been in contact with the user before, instead of claiming otherwise(or perhaps they never explicitly denied it in the first place).

To conclude, I would then request, aside from U above, that people disclose important information like this. I also hope that admins use the above, when reviewing this case.

Second last thing before I end this section, admins should review this page, in case any other editors, mainly the ones listed there, stop by to comment.

As the last thing, one should note Bree has come to the defense of one of the editors listed in the above page. Seems Mb, Bree, Drok, and Nab know each other quite well, at least enough to watch their talk page, and jump to their defense.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely

Resolved

 – Everybody seems to agree that these too should not interact for a while, so be it. The arbcom decision [9] allows for such restrictions. Therefore, Daedalus969 and Mbz1 are to avoid all direct interaction for 3 months. I know the consensus was for an indefinite ban; however, I'm not comfortable with that. If any other admin wants to extend the ban, by all means.

Dave (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are only very few differences, there are way to many to count all of them, but I could present them by request.

Few days ago the user left 11! warning messages at my talk page, few after I asked the user to stop:

1. [10];[11];[12];[13];[14];[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20].
2. daedalus969 reports me to vandalism board, calling me a "vandal". The request was deleted.
3. reports me for edit warring, which was declined declined with a message by closing admin: ":What a pointless mess
4. follows me to NuclearWarfare talk page
5. after which is warned to stop constant pursuit of me across multiple fora, but the user never stopped.
6. Here's the user reverts me once again

Please, please help me to get a restriction order from that user.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Stellarkid (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want me reverting you, perhaps you should stop personally attacking other users. You you need to be indef blocked from this site, as you are obviously incapable of doing anything but attacking people.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Number 5 is also complete bullshit, as I had ceased from responding to you, only until you began attacking me and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support mutual separation of these editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I obviously oppose as if this user does not want people reverting them, perhaps they should stop attacking others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support Let's make it a few months, and maybe you'll both grow up in the meantime. AniMate 06:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like the most reasonable solution.--Gilisa (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please vote in the section below, Malik and Ani.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support I would support a 1 year ban with the condition that upon any further drama after the 1 year, the ban is reinstated permanently. 4 months is not enough time for some people to grow up. Breein1007 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You should talk. Complete denial that mb has done anything wrong despite the evidence above, not to mention a refusal to practice what you preach. You go on an on about AGF, but refuse to retract a bad-faith accusation. Your refusal to admit any fault speaks volumes of your maturity. I retracted my edits, reverted my edits, and admitted fault in the matter. You however have yet to admit your own fault.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although a year might be enough. -- Avenue (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you disclose the fact, as noted above, that you've been in contact with this user for awhile? The above, per what I just said, should be taken with a grain of salt. Funny how all the buddies of Mb are jumping to her defense, but failing to disclose their relation regarding her, while all the victims of her attacks are disclosing what is relevant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now done so in my !vote on your proposal below. --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on my !vote: I think any interaction ban should also forbid them both from commenting about the other user, including in user space, and from reporting the other user for policy violations. If it's important, someone else will do it. --Avenue (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support It seems that Divide and rule is in order. Broccoli (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, overdue. This has generated nothing except drama. Tim Song (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support for a year - it will be better for everyone (including them) if they just start ignoring each other. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

6 month ban on interaction between Mbz1 and Daedalus969

The title sums it up. Half a year.

• Support - This whole thing is causing me too much stress.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support good idea to give it a break, but forever assumes things will never change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1 week block and 3 month probation for user interaction for Mbz1

Luckily, the uninvolved admins that placed the first week long ban in regards to the previous debacle were able to see the obvious, that Mbz1 was sniping and personally attacking others. As this user continues to personally attack other users, giving barnstars that insult them, and accuse them of racism on their userpage, directly after the week-long ban expired, something sterner than a slap on the wrist is required, which really, is all they have been getting. This is obviously why they think they can continue; because they can't be touched.

• Mbz1 is blocked 1 week
• After this block expires, this user is placed on probation for 3 months regarding user interaction
  • Should the probation be violated¹, user is blocked for 1 week
    • These blocks will escalate in time, with the minimum being 1 week if user continues to violate¹ their probation
    • If this user continues to violate¹ their probation, the probation is reset, with the starting time being the last violation¹ the user has committed.

1: Personal attack, taunt, snipe, award of any kind referring to users Mb has been in conflict with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously, as I am the writer, I support for the reasons outlined above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support on the condition that Daedalus969 does not interact with Mbz1 during the probationn period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. No reverts. No messages to them. No replies to them. I will only report edits that I may think are attacks to the acting admin in this matter. I will only say that I think they are attacks, and I will not push for any blocks on the matter, nor warnings, nor extensions, nor bans. I will simply report, and leave them to make up their own mind on the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your over-reaction to what you perceive as personal attacks has been a big part of the problem here, in my view, so you proposing to keep watch over Mbz1 seems counterproductive at best. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have over-reacted a week ago, but this discussion is not about a week ago. It is about their most recent problematic edits. Further, why don't you disclose your full involvement here, before I do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You continue to see personal attacks where I don't, as in your interaction with Breein1007 below. On the scope of this discussion, I think the situation has been building for a while, and needs to be viewed as a whole. On disclosure, see my !vote below. -- Avenue (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Daedalus969, your behaviour in this whole childish escapade has been much more deplorable than that of Mbz1. That includes comments you have made in this very AN/I report. Struck out or not, it is clear that you are unable to handle yourself appropriately and interact nicely with other editors. There is no sane reason that Mbz1 should be blocked for a week and then put on probation while you face no consequences. I will consider supporting proposals that include sanctions on Mbz1 if these proposals include harsher sanctions on you. There is really no doubt that if you compare the comments and edits that the two of you have made in relation to this issue, you have been way more out of line. Breein1007 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, what precisely is more deplorable than insulting, sniping, name calling, and taunting? Really, I would like to know. By the way, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Sanctions are enacted upon regarding the strength of the argument, not the strength of the vote numbers. I haven't been the one attacking other users. And really, do not bring up AGF until you apologize for your bad-faith accusation of deliberately twisting the facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to let your comment speak for itself. I'm done with this discussion... I've put in my votes with good reason. It's not up to you to judge the strength of my argument. That would be silly! :) Unless any new developments are made in this report (ie: new proposals), I'm done commenting. Breein1007 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, you're going to accuse me of something without base. Nice job there. My actions are worse than calling people names, sniping them, insulting them, and taunting them. The same is true of your own argument, where you accuse me of worse than an NPA and refuse to back it up. WP:BURDEN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I said I was done commenting, and I really wish I could let this go, but it's just too good..... WP:BURDEN??? You want me to find a reliable source stating that you attacked other editors? .................. lol. Breein1007 (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Take back your personal attack. I haven't personally attacked anyone. Your baseless accusation, as defined by NPA, is a personal attack. Lastly, a diff is a reliable source in this matter. The point of bringing up burden is that you have not provided any proof of your accusations. So really, put up or shut up. If you refuse to provide diffs, it will surely speak volumes to the reviewing admins here of the strength of your argument; less harsher restrictions on the user who has personally attacked others and continues to do so, you laughing at my request for evidence, your refusal to admit any fault regarding your bad-faith accusations... the list goes on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're trying to play the neutral, you sure aren't showing it. Less harsh sanctions for the one who continues to attack others, despite continued warnings. Right. Good luck with that argument.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am obviously deeply involved in this dispute and I understand if my opinion is thus taken with a grain of salt, but I am personally amazed and bewildered at how many personal attacks Mbz1 has gotten away with whilst refusing to apologize or even acknowledge wrongdoing. Sometimes I just don't understand Wikipedia. This is one of them.

It seems that the lack of any consequences has emboldened her, as Malik put it, and now she has moved beyond attacking myself, Daedalus and other editors and is attacking admins who are merely trying to mediate the dispute. I believe this shows a disrespect of not just the administrators but of the project itself. A block to cool her down and reflect upon how she relates to other people in the project could be useful for everyone, particularly Mbz1 if she wants to continue to edit in the long term.

It's true that she has contributed positively to Wikipedia in the past -- mainly her excellent images -- however her recent edits have become and more weighted towards pursuing drama rather than improving the project. Perhaps a topic ban from Israel-Palestinian issues, which seem to provoke Mbz1 into behaving badly, whilst explicitly allowing her to keep submitting images would be the best of both worlds. Factsontheground (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That is no doubt your true objective here, and you and your compadres have no qualms in putting up false information in your attempt to remove her from editing your area [21] or disrupting WP in order to do so. I would just add that this is SOP in this area. The main object is to silence dissenting voices and barring that to tie the editor up so much with defending him or herself that there is no time or inclination to edit. Of course a happy side effect from all of this is that the editor now has a "record" that they can quote later on, as did in Mbz1's Afd, true or otherwise. I urge the greater community to look at the bigger picture. but there should be consequences for false and exaggerated accusations, wikihounding and wikilawyering in the attempt to silence your adversaries. It goes against the very foundation of WP. Stellarkid (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about instead you refrain from accusing Mbz1 of having a "racist anti-Palestinian agenda"[22] and similar assumptions of bad faith? I think that would help her cool down even better than a block. You have some cheek suggesting that editing Israel-Palestine articles in itself has provoked Mbz1 into behaving badly here. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything I can do (or anyone else) is going to cool Mzb1 down. Her own misbehaviour is her own responsibility. We've all tried being civil, ignoring her and hoping that she will go away, but that hasn't worked. You can see right there that I was attempting to ignore her so she invaded my talk page.

And as for WP:AGF, the policy is not a one way street, nor does it direct Wikipedians to be blind to others agendas and misdeeds. Why did Mbz1 defend the insertion of hate material into Wikipedia? If anyone inserted material from Stormfront or Jew Watch they would be, rightfully, banned immediately. I don't see how Masada 2000 is any different from those websites. Hate is hate. If she wants me to stop mentioning it and to assume good faith, she can start by apologizing, which she refuses to do for _anything_, and we can start again. Until then I am not going to shut my eyes and pretending nothing is going on. I don't see why I should have to put up with people who view me as less than human because of where I Come from. Factsontheground (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support as per Factsontheground above - I have been the target of a recent campaign by an obsessive and childish attack by Mbz1 and everywhere I go on Wikipedia there is a childish drama with Mbz1 at the centre. Anyone who edits in a manner which contradicts Mbz1's political agenda is attacked by her. Just today I saw her tell an administrator regarding Factsontheground That user should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later. - This is really childish behaviour as far as I am concerned and Wikipedia can do with such agendas of editors to attack other users in this manner. Vexorg (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This from an editor who published false information about Mbz1 at an Afd in a clear attempt to influence the outcome of it. [23]. To this day there have been no consequences for you for posting it and none either for either you or user:factsontheground for attempting to keep this false information in. [24]. Stellarkid (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• comment to stellarkid - Actually that is not the case. I should have checked the status of MBz1'as sockputtery accusation. I did not continue to attempt to keep the information here whatsoever. On the other hand Stellarkid your unquestioning support of Mbz1's often obsessive and immature disruptive behaviour recently on Wikpedia has not gone unnoticed by the community. Vexorg (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• response to Vexorg. It is in fact the case that you attempted to put false information about Mbz1 in, whether through ignorance or intention, and I take your word it was ignorance. You did not attempt to strike or remove this information yourself when you learned that it was false. Instead it was reverted by Malik Shabizz who reinserted the information here [25](edit summary:"(Undid revision 350080430 by Breein1007 (talk) there's no reason to strike a comment; respond to it instead")), and reverted back to your version here [26] and went on to ignore the admonition he gave to others and to strike your comments here [27]. In fact I think everyone else involved in this ANI discussion attempted to put the libel you initiated back in after Mbz1 and Breein1007 took it out appropriately. Stellarkid (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Breein1007. If blocks are being handed around, I believe Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have acted to escalate this wikidrama at least as much as Mbz1, so blocking her alone would not send the right message. I have worked with Mbz1 recently on a list whose Afd was also a cause of conflict, and I believe she can edit constructively on controversial topics when not being hounded. I have also tried to help defend her against two unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry in the last 2 months. Although I had no real contact with her before that, I've also admired her photography since at least 2007, when I put together a gallery of featured pictures for the Volcanoes WikiProject. So no doubt I am biased too. --Avenue (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It takes two for a tango-and this case just doesn't seem to be any different. Taking Mbz1 out of the context she was acting in will actually miss the point. There are two different approaches to edit on Israel-Palstine/Jewish people related articles. All of the editors involved here, or at the least the very most, editing on very similar articles and many times on the same. It got to this that we virtually have two different "armies" which sometimes warring in different ways on editing. It will take a lot of work to follow the entire history of interactions between Mbz1 and other editors and so on. But if you follow it then you will find that many times she was treated unfairly, with some editors being incivil toward her, buzzing wikidrama around her and so on. So, if someone realy want to be helpful here and to solve this issue once and for all, without getting time and again to the different boards, he/she should review the entire history of interactions any maybe even the history of editing on involved articles. Where there is no respect to wiki rules of editing, all "sore evil" is soon to follow. A lot of work, but the only way to make things better.--Gilisa (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Gilisa. If Mbz1 is blocked, then I think a few other editors should be block. Grow up a little. Broccoli (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As I said in my comments above, virtually every "support" vote here is by those who have been involved in content disputes with Mbz1 and have responded by wp:Wikihounding and wp:Wikilawyering in an (concerted) attempt to remove a dissenting and intelligent voice from Israel-Palestine and Jewish related articles by creating this unnecessary wp:Battle. 9/10ths of the diffs presented against her are mild and of the type one would expect from any editor involved in an edit dispute with another, to say nothing of this kind of harassment. I applaud Mbz1 for trying to take it with some attempt at sarcasm and humor. I believe that the suggestion of sanctions are entirely misdirected here. Stellarkid (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising coming from someone who is buddies with the user. Also, if you call insulting others humor, you are grossly mistaken.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the interaction problems are mostly with Daedalus969, so no need for a wider ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Blocked for 24 hrs for disruption

I have blocked Mbz1 for disruption for 24 hours; I strongly advised her to take a short wikibreak a couple of days ago and forgo further disruptive activity and attacks, and the response has been redoubled disruption. I understand the sentiment behind longer blocks but feel that this is a new "first incident" on this particular problem and I'm starting with the lowest tier block per normal policy. The community can of course chose other sanctions in addition to the current block, and interaction bans are probably a good idea.

Regarding one point made above - Part of the reason I am blocking now is that it does not, always, take two to tango. The lead up to this situation was a large scale, multiway content and personal dispute which had multiple parties acting abusively. Since the 24 hr interaction ban earlier this week, the level of personal attack and disruption dropped to the level where admin attention was essentially no longer required, with one exception. Mbz1 continued acting as disruptively and abusively as she had prior to the interaction ban.

The idea that conflict will not happen without someone conflicting back is somewhat ludicrous. Here on Wikipedia we see individuals starting conflicts without provocation all the time, and individuals escalating or continuing conflicts after others step away from them all the time. While true that many or most conflicts involve multiple parties butting heads, that is not always true.

This block is not an assessment of blame for the pre-interaction-ban overall activities, whose origin I cannot reasonably point to in the volume of activity, or a judgement on the underlying content issues, where I feel generally that the extremists on both sides are clearly in the wrong. It's merely an indication that multiple admins felt that the overall incident reached the point where we felt that admin response was appropriate and necessary earlier in the week, and one of the parties did not get the message. If we tell you to put the stick down and deal with the problem as adults, continuing to poke with the stick is not an acceptable response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record - Mbz1 has removed the block message from her talk page. That's her right within the user page policy, but admins reviewing the situation will have to check the history to see it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

note - in line with Georgewilliamherbert statement above Mbz1 removed the block message and then later after reinserting the block message lied by claiming she'd never removed the Block message and further made an attack at the blocking admin. Considering this attitude she displays I think 24 hours is far too short. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't look like she removed the block message, just GWH's detailed explanation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

She did remove it. It was the template that wasn't removed. It was gone for 41 minutes. Why would the admin Georgewilliamherbert say it was removed if it wasn't? The edit history easily proves the issue. The removal isn't the problem it's the lying and attacking the the admin that is 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about her removing the explanation -- I'm just saying that it's misleading to claim she lied about removing it, when she never touched the original template. I could make a good case for the "block message" being the template, with the later explanation just being a comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Per SarekOfVulcan, the template was not removed. GWH likely made a simple mistake while attempting to ensure that reviewing admins were aware that the template was still available in the history (when it was still visible on the page). Nothing to get heated about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I to understand then that Vexorg in claiming that Mbz1 lied (directly above) is making yet another bad-false accusation against her? Vexorg seems to be able to make one false bad-faith accusation after another with impunity yet Mbz is the one who gets the block? This strikes me as particularly unfair considering that her "disruptive behavior" has all centered on clearing herself of such accusations. "Racist" accusations, "sockpuppetry" accusations, excessive templating of her page by fellow editors etc. Again, I think a fair reading of these accusations at ANI would lead to the blocking of the parties doing the accusing. Stellarkid (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about block templates, but I do feel that using one that says the block was for "repeated abuse of editing privileges", with this wikilinked to Wikipedia:Vandalism, seems inappropriate here. GWH justified the block in his explanation[28] (now removed by Mbz1) in part by saying "there is significant administrator support" here for Daedelus's block proposal above. The only administrator I see supporting it is Malik Shabazz (the initiator of this thread), so this does not seem accurate. I am not contesting the block, but I do invite the blocking admin to improve their communication about it. --Avenue (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I addressed part of this in another discussion on my talk page, but for the record here...

The other admin support for longer blocks I listed is not entirely correct, I misread some of the supports on scanning it. However - that was part of the explanation and context around the block and abuse case, not the reason I blocked. I blocked for disruption. After applying the block, while preparing the block message, I included a bunch of context items including that (mistaken) one.

That would have been a reversible mistake if I were implementing a community sanction proposal, but was only a minor footnote in what I actually did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the block message, Template:Uw-block2 is generic. We have a disruption specific one, Template:Uw-toablock but it's for indef disruption blocks only. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If you believe we need a uw-block2 equivalent for disruption to clarify things that's a reasonable argument to make, but we've done with uw-block2 for many years now without that many complaints. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has removed a declined unblock request while the block is still in effect, against policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, thanks for responding to my concerns above. I should have thought to check your talk page first. --Avenue (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just ask the community if the following diffs do not count as WP:harassment : [29],[30],[31][32]? Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting a policy violation isn't harassment. As to the mfd, yes, I am going to mfd a page which only serves to attack me and others, with no pending rfc. If there was a pending rfc, I wouldn't care. If there is going to be an rfc, it must be filed within at least a month from the creation of the page. Lists of perceived flaws are not allowed unless they are going to be used in a pending rfc that is filed in a timely manner.

You've already shown you're going to defend this user no matter how many people they insult and attack, instead of telling them that doing such is unacceptable, no matter the reason. But I shouldn't waste my energy on you, you'll just continue to push for harsher punishments on the victims instead of the attacker.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969, what exactly did you expect? That editors here will reply only on your behalf, slam Mbz1 and push to punish badly your opponent while ignoring your mistakes!? And you did have mistakes, not one. I find your grievances on Stellarkid unwarranted and I realy think that you should see and to be able to accept what was wrong in what you did. On another issue-any decision on blocking each of the sides is strongly preferred to be done by uninvolved admin. --Gilisa (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolution?

Could an uninvolved administrator please consider whether this can be resolved somehow? For instance, there seems to be unanimous support for a ban on interaction between two editors, the only dispute being about how long it should last. Perhaps this would fall under the general sanctions for Israel/Palestine articles, since this dispute arose around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). The discussion here has subsided into low-level sniping, but I am concerned that things will flare up again if nothing is done besides the contentious[33] block above.

A disclaimer: I am not uninvolved here, so please do not take my word for any of this. --Avenue (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, one of these editors is currently blocked, the other is on a self-enforced wikibreak. Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's block has expired, but I don't think she's made any edits since then. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an indefinite interaction ban between these two are in order, following the consensus above. That being said, I would prefer if an admin who is not involved in this issue sanctions this, to avoid further controversy. —Dark 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Everybody seems to agree that these too should not interact for a while, so be it. The arbcom decision [34] allows for such restrictions. Therefore, Daedalus969 and Mbz1 are to avoid all direct interaction for 3 months. I know the consensus was for an indefinite ban; however, I'm not comfortable with that. If any other admin wants to extend the ban, by all means. Dave (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Dave's decision. Seems to be the best, we will re-evaluate (if necessary) after a 3 month period. —Dark 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this as well. Unomi (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. -- Avenue (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody formally notified the two editors? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to assume good faith, but I cannot help it like to see the only reason for the above edit is preventing the thread from being archived. What kind of administrator would ask such questions. I am very sure that the administrator has my talk page at his watch list and saw I was formally notified about the decision , but even if he does not, what is preventing him from checking "two editors" talk pages either current or history, or in a worse case scenario ask Dave at his own talk page about that. IMO the above edit is unacceptable. To hold such a big thread another 24 hours at AN/I is a waste of space and nothing more. It was mostly waste of space from the very beginning. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You should consider taking a wikibreak so that you don't have to try so hard to assume good faith then. This notification [35] was insufficient and may leave grounds for wikilawyering at a later date. It might not be appropriate for Malik to give you a full notification if he is involved, so this might legitimately explain why he is raising this now so that problems don't occur later. In any case, I have notified you both now. Any further issues that are raised are likely to prolong the thread so it might be best for everyone to step away unless it is absolutely necessary to make a comment to raise an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded the comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Links of notification: Daedalus969 and Mbz1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 is now accusing me of following him around. I think a major problem here is that Mbz1 appears to be involved in repeatedly creating petty squabbles due to a constant assumption of bad faith. I've told the user in no uncertain terms that if it continues, Mbz1 can come to expect a sanction proposal to address that problem with her approach, but like with the suggestion he take a wikibreak, it's just not sinking in. Perhaps someone else can get through to them more effectively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, take a deep breath and step back. This matter is over. Both Daedalus and Mbz1 have been restricted, there should be no need to continue discussion on this thread. That being said, please remember to assume good faith at all times. —Dark 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban between User:SkagitRiverQueen and User:DocOfSoc

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.

The "Interaction Ban" between User:SkagitRiverQueen and User:DocOfSoc has been superseded by a de facto community siteban on SkagitRiverQueen for 1 year. The block has been issued by User:SarekOfVulcan. –MuZemike 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

For those who have been following this long drama (including both user's name changes), you will know that any interactions between these two are rather - poisonous. I have long recommended an interaction ban between these two. SRQ was the first to accept, but I did not proceed further. In declining a recent DoS unblock, I reiterated the suggestion. DoS has also now accepted, as per my talkpage. It appears that all that is left is to set out terms and conditions. I'm about to be a little difficult to get ahold of, so I would ask the community to use their wisdom to hash this out. I am about to advise both users about this proposal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The following is long, and I apologize for that - but I truly believe there is more to this than meets the eye, and would appreciate anyone commenting on this to read everything I have written here before commenting - Thanks

Disagree IMO, the only "drama" still existing between us is on JoyDiamond/DocOfSoc's end. Further, it is my opinion that DOS doesn't understand the depth of what an interaction ban really means because she doesn't even understand some of the most basic aspects of Wikipedia standards, conduct, and rules. She saw that there is an interaction ban between another editor and myself, ergo, she jumped on that bandwagon thinking it would solve what she sees as issues between the two of us so she can be free to edit articles as she wishes. I've watched her game the system time and again with her reverts of my edits just to make a point and essentially mark what she sees as her "territory" - IOW, she has ownership issues. I freely admit I have had trouble in certain areas of working in WP. But where DOS is concerned, as long as she stays at only one article in WP, she will never become a team player within the project and edit peacefully in WP. DocOfSoc is essentially a one-article account. She has dabbled with a couple of other articles, but her main focus and reason for being in WP appears to be the Charles Karel Bouley article (locked again because of the edit warring she initiated). Everytime the article is unlocked, she goes back to the same edit-warring behavior as before the lock and still has the same lack of understanding about simple WP processes, procedures, standards, rules, etc - not the least of which is how to work *with* other editors and discuss major article changes on the talk page first. I contend that if an administrator would actually DO something about her obvious lack of general WP understanding and commit to mentoring her at other articles, then a lot of DOS's problems in WP would go away. Everytime her favorite article (the Bouley article) gets locked, DOS goes away - only to come back as ignorant about WP editing as she was prior to the lock because she doesn't do any substantive editing while the lock is in effect. If someone would take the time to encourage her, help her, and show her the "WP way", she would be a lot happier here (IMO). I've tried numerous times to point certain things out to her (last night being the latest) but invariably she takes offense - no matter how matter-of-fact my comments to her are. I can see why, with the history between her and I at the Bouley article, she might initially see my comments to her as an affront. But since no one else is stepping up to the plate to do anything to help her out, then ...???

I think the real heart of the matter here is that no one else says boo to her until she complains about something. So far, the only person trying to help her on a regular basis to "get" Wikipedia is me. I've been doing it - not to irritate her as she probably thinks - but to try and lend a hand and help her so that WP relations between the two of us might improve. Even when she is in the midst of edit warring, no one says anything to her about it but me. The Bouley article she works on just gets locked and in the end, she doesn't grasp that her negative actions played into getting the article closed down again. Other than me, no one says anything to her - and I know that there are admins and other editors watching what's going on. She's getting set up for failure everytime the article is unlocked - that isn't fair to her and it does nothing to promote anything positive for her WP experience or the article or the project as a whole. Last night at her talk page I tried to explain some basic WP concepts and editing standards to her as well as point out she was in danger of violating 3RR and she immediately cried "stalking". Apparently, that was when she started talking about an interaction ban again. But where were the admins and other editors who were watching the whole thing transpire? Why didn't *someone else* step up and explain the things to her that I tried to?

I can leave her alone from now on when it comes to trying to give her advice - but I don't need a formal interaction ban in place with DOS. The fact remains, however, that *someone* needs to help DOS out and explain things to her (isn't that one of the things administrators are supposed to be for more than just being WP Cops?). She's asked for help several times in the past, and no one has really taken the time to work with her on a continued basis. Just band-aids and blocks here and there. Like I said in the beginning, a lot of DOS's Wiki-problems would go away if she would try editing more articles and have a mentor available to help her do that so she can grow as a Wikipedian. I can commit to leaving her alone, can someone commit to working with her? Wouldn't *that* be a better, more proactive solution than just putting another reactionary band-aid ban in place? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another interaction ban proposed involving SRQ, and I doubt the last. I'm not quite as familiar with the SRQ/DocOfSoc rivalry as I am with certain other SRQ-involved rivalries, but it seems to me that if it takes a few interaction bans before everyone realizes the common denominator, so be it. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:08, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • "I don't need a formal interaction ban in place" -- then why in the world can't you just leave her alone?????? All I'm getting from the above is "IDON'TGETITIDON'TGETITIDON'T..." you get the idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Support interaction ban, and I could get behind something more drastic if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed my statement, "I can commit to leaving her alone" (although I don't know how you could have since it's at the very end of what I wrote and in bold letters). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Equazcion on this. This editor, SRQ, already has one interaction ban in place and wanted more of us to be included, including myself. I am not a neutral in this as I have had contact with both editors. My contact so far, though brief, with DOH have been pleasant and she has be receptive to ideas and help given her. When will more be accomplished about all of this is the question. I support this I guess, if that's all that is available. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If a member is causing this much trouble to warrant two interaction bans, why not just ban the user. Obviously they are causing more disruption to the project than anything. I'm sure people don't want to have to keep babysitting adults that don't know how to positively interact with each other. What does it take to get banned here? —Mike Allen 23:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't commented on any of the numerous threads on this editor to date as far as I know because, frankly, I have better things to do. I'm inclined to agree with MikeAllen, however I think this interaction ban is worth a go but if it doesn't solve the problem, I think we need to get more drastic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced anything needs to be done just yet, but after talking with SRQ on her talk page, I get the impression that she needs a mentor. I would once again encourage her to revise her watchlist and focus on creating and improving article content, or get involved helping with routine maintenance tasks. Anything would be preferable to the constant conflicts and disputes. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I did not receive any notification of a proposed interaction ban, as you mentioned in your first paragraph, as I would have agreed immediately! SRQ has stalked me to two other obscure articles, (Margaret Clark and John Tran), edit warred without repercussions, hence totally discouraging me from editing other articles in which I am interested. When I reported the obvious stalking, nothing was done. I have never been extended any *friendly* advice, good faith, civility or any other "pillars" from SRQ. As portrayed in the above long tirade by SRQ, one would wonder how I made it thru 14 years of higher education and post graduate school. Would "valedictorian" be peacocky? Thank all of you for your input. I would appreciate the opportunity to just be a "Happy Editor!" DocOfSoc (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never "stalked" DOS - when she came here to complain I was stalking her a few months ago, she was told quite plainly by more than one admin that I was *not* stalking her. For DOS to state that I have discouraged her from editing others articles is unfounded and ridiculous. If she truly wanted to edit other articles, she would - she's never had trouble doing what she wants and having the freedom to do so in other instances here in WP. That she doesn't edit other articles only further proves that hers is a one-article account. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's further proof the DOS seriously is in need of a WP mentor - this was just posted to my talk page:

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction_ban_between_User:SkagitRiverQueen_and_User:DocOfSoc regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank youDocOfSoc (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would she post this on my talk page when BWilkins posted the very same thing there early this morning (and it's still there)? Answer: because she still doesn't get how WP works (but, at least she is proving my point that she needs someone to mentor her). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And now she's just placed the same notice on her own talk page [36]. In case you missed that, it's an AN/I notice to *herself* on her own talk page (and with her own sig). <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And she's now added the same thing [37] to BWilkins' talk page (the administrator who started this thread and put notices on both of our talk pages already here[38] and here [39] ... <another shrug> -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I just got this on my talk page from DOS (with the edit summary stating "Leave me alone") -

Notice that I posted as required has been deleted.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

"Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

*Again* please stop following my every move. The above states that your comments on the Admin noticeboard are inappropriate. As at least two admins have stated; Why don't you Just leave me alone?DocOfSoc (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The diff for the above is here [40] Quod erat demonstratum. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use (notice) to do so." DocOfSoc (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have explained this to DOS on her talk page along with some other information that should help her. [41] As for SRQ being the one to comment on all of this, she shouldn't be since her comments are taken as being agressive and unhelpful to DOS. I do think though that the above comments are exactly what some of the problems are here. SRQ is too agressive when it comes to anything DOS writes or does. She needs to leave this editor alone, period. I would like to also point out that in the case of the other editor that there is an interaction ban now in effect, SRQ has managed to go to 26 articles, last count, of that editor too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have been dismayed by SRQ's treatment of Crohnie. I'm at a loss at understanding why SRQ is so aggressive, but if SRQ could take a step back from future conflicts and focus on encyclopedia matters, I'm sure everything will work out for the best. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have been dismayed at Crohnie's treatment of me since we first encountered each other - she has an ax to grind with me and, IMO, that's the only reason she's posting here on this matter and has now suddenly befriended DOS. In fact, she recently told DOS, "Please just ignore SRQ as I believe the interaction is going to go into affect". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I got approached by DOS on my talk page. I have been trying to help in a minimal way because I do not have the time or the good health to volunteer to be her mentor. As for the quote SRQ makes, yes I said this but it's out of context a bit. I was giving advice to DOS and yes I think she should start ignoring you so things don't esculate. I think this interaction may go into affect so the best thing she can do for herself is to concentrate on edits and ignore you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm. You were "approached by DOS" after you suddenly, out of nowhere, started editing the Bouley article the same day the article was unlocked after being locked for three months[42]. I've always been curious how that happened and why... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've told you before, I came across this article while doing vandal patrol using the link on the left called 'recent changes'. I also use this to find new articles to work and the Bouley article appeared on the list. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If people find articles they want to edit but see that they're protected, they'll often watch them and wait til they're unprotected. The fact that you see someone suddenly make an edit to an article when its protection expires doesn't indicate anything, other than that's what tends to occur naturally. There's no reason to suspect anything there, whatever you might be saying you suspect. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:12, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting explanation, however, it doesn't really wash because yours was the first edit on the article since December 21, 2009. Exactly what were you vandal patrolling on an article that hadn't been touched for three months? I find it further curious that out of all of the articles that had 'recent changes' made to them at that hour, the only edits you had made prior to the edits at the Bouley article were one revert at an article you frequent and a number of user talk page exchanges. Seems to me that if you really were doing "vandal patrol", your edits would reflect that fact. What your edit history at that time reveals is that you made no significant edits (vandal patrolling or otherwise) before *or* after your edits to the Bouley article immediately after it was unlocked. Like I said, your explanation doesn't wash. My opinion is that you targeted the Bouley article in order to "stir the pot" with me and start a fight. I say this because of the evidence of your editing history at that time and the fact that you have rarely (if ever) demonstrated WP:AGF with me. And that takes us back to that ax you have to grind with me, Crohnie... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

She said she came across the article during recent changes patrol. She didn't say when that happened, let alone that it was right when the protection was lifted, or even sometime during the protection period. She could've begun watching it before that time. Crohnie doesn't start fights with you, or with anyone, in my experience. She was actually maintaining an excessively nice demeanor with you for an excessive period of time originally, as I see she generally does with everyone, and put off criticizing your actions far longer than I or anyone I know would reasonably have done. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:26, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has been on the receiving end of Crohnie's incivility and her continued grinding ax, I don't see it that way at all. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I do not have to explain myself to you though I did try. If you remember, I posted to your talk page recently to thank you for your help. How many people are you going to assume bad faith with today? [43] I think I'm done here for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as fellow Wikipedians, we are all accountable to each other. Further, I note that above you are accusing me of bad faith while snarkily asking me "how many people are you going to assume bad faith with today"...? Wow - talk about bad faith and incivility. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support DOS comments, above, on how she's been discouraged from editing other articles, due to perceived stalking on the part of SRQ. SRQ denies having stalked DOS, but the perception of stalking remains, and the edit logs seem to support DOS's assertion...

In September, during a particularly nasty edit war over Charles Karel Bouley, SRQ started following DOS around Wikipedia, and copying DOS's communications with other editors to her talk page. Take a look at SRQ's edit history starting September 21st.[44]

September 23rd, DOS posted an administrative request to her talk page, asking for help to stop SRQ from following her around Wikipedia.[45] A few hours later, I asked SRQ why she was hounding DOS.[46] SRQ responded, denying that she was hounding DOS, and claiming that, in fact, DOS was hounding her.[47]

Note that I had previously requested a lock on the article, to stop the warring. BlackKite obliged, locking the article for three days.[48] Unfortunately, as soon as it was unlocked, the warring started again. So BlackKite locked it for ten days. Soon as it was unlocked, you guessed it. Locked again. This time for a month. Only this time it wasn't DOS and SRQ, it was SRQ and Regisfugit, who seemed intent on harassing SRQ.

During this block SRQ went off and worked on a series of other articles. DOS, on November 2nd, started working on John Tran and Margaret Clark. November 6th, the Karel article unlocked. And the warring started again. This time, BlackKite locked it for three months.[49]

And then, on November 9th, SRQ started editing the aforementioned Margaret Clark and John Tran articles -- articles she'd never touched until DOS started working on them. This kicked off yet another round of edit warring, and an AN/I from DOS, against SRQ, for harassment, edit warring, and hounding.[50]

February 8th, the Karel article unlocked again. And the latest round of edit warring began. February 18th, DOS edited Ultimate Revenge, adding a comment about Karel having been on the show.[51] SRQ immediately reverted the edit.[52] Again, another article she hadn't previously touched.

As Bwilkins has said, these editors are toxic to one another. Each routinely accuses the other of bias, POV, and COI. SRQ has accused DOS of sanitizing the article under Karel's direction, while DOS has accused SRQ of bashing Karel in Internet discussion groups, and bringing that bias to Wikipedia. Each perceives wrong-doing on the part of the other, and I see no end in sight. This has been going on for over a year, and needs to stop. -FeralDruid (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, FeralDruid's compendium above leaves out some important points that only shows bias rather than the truth. Yes, it's true that when DOS and I started edting at the Bouley article at the same time I was doing some stupid things - I did engage in edit warring, I did edit contentiously, and it was wrong. While the Bouley article was locked for three months (the first time), however, I took the time to learn more about how Wikipedia works and did a lot of introspection about my Wiki-relationship with DOS. Yes, I did edit other articles - but that's nothing new with me. I have been editing WP since 2006 - I've created articles, I've uploaded photos that are used in WP, I've made significant contributions to a number of articles. I was an active Wikipedian for a long time before these problems with DOS came up. The picture that FD is painting of me not being active is not accurate. DOS, on the other hand, has (as I stated yesterday) only dabbled at a few other articles - and yes, I did see she was editing those articles and edited some of the stuff she did. Why? Because they were poor edits. Even when DOS brought her "stalking" complaint here, she was told by more than one admin that (a) my edits to her edits were appropriate, and (b) I wasn't stalking her and to just move on. DOS's edit to the Ultimate Revenge article was also warranted - it was a bad edit that highlighted "Karel" (Charles Karel Bouley), was poorly done, and made a claim that was not referenced. If memory serves, I noted in the edit summary that there needed to be a reference attached to the statement about Bouley. AFAIK, to date, no one has changed or challenged the edit.

As for the claim that we each accuse the other of "bias, POV, and COI" - yep, I do sincerely believe that DOS's edits to the Bouley article are rife with "bias, POV, and COI". In fact, DOS is most definitely guilty of all of those - she's a personal friend of Charles Karel Bouley (the article subject) and her edits and attempts to skew and sanitize the article prove "bias, POV, and COI" because of that friendship time and time again. As I stated previously, she has dabbled at a few other articles, but in essence, DOS is a one article only agenda editor. That I haven't allowed her to move forward with her "pro-Karel" agenda is her biggest beef against me and is a big part of the problem.

I've said I can leave her alone - and will do so without a formal ban in place. I will even stop editing the Tran and Clark articles so that there is no conflict there. But I will not stop editing the Bouley article. I've worked on it for too long (longer than DOS, in fact) and refuse to allow her to turn it into a fan page (as she and Bouley both have attempted to do on many occasions). Beside that, DOS and I are essentially the only ones who have edited that particular article for quite a while. If there is an interaction ban in place, when she edits with her usual POV and COI, I won't be able to revert or change her edits. That's not reasonable and it's non-productive to the article and the project. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To echo what Mike Allen wrote above: SkagitRiverQueen/Wildhartlivie, SkagitRiverQueen/DocofSoc, SkagitRiverQueen/Crohnie. What is the common factor here? WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TRUTH, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, WP:CLUE - what exactly does it take? How many interaction bans are going to be put in place before the obvious is acted on? Some people are just clearly incapable of editing in a collegial manner, and all the interaction bans in the world will not change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is your point here, BMK? I have one interaction ban in place that has been implemented in the last week. One. Since mid-2006 I have made nearly 6000 edits. If the majority of them, as you are contending, have not been made in a "collegial manner" and I am such a terrible, mean and nasty editor as you are also contending, how is it that this one interaction ban proves I am someone who needs to be banned completely from WP? You seem to think you and Mike have the ultimate answer here - can you back up your opinion with something real (or are you just blowing smoke)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

De facto community ban?

I just gave up on anything short of a full ban, and blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 year. If anyone thinks that this went too far, feel free to unblock without checking with me. If consensus does not override the block, it should be probably considered a community-imposed ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE SRQ just posted an unblock request with a detailed list of actions to be taken to avoid problematic editing in the future. If this affects anyone's positions below, please chime in before an admin finalizes the ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've declined that unblock request due to the current strong consensus here, but in the interest of fairness this thread should probably remain open for the rest of today on the off chance that her proposal for conditions changes the minds of the participants and/or other significant objections to the block become evident. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't affect my position. In this latest unblock request SRQ claims to be a person who is always "willing to learn and change"; however SRQ has a long habit of saying lots of nice things like this about herself, while her actions have always shown otherwise. I've never seen her admit fault or acknowledge a change in position as a result of discussion (and I'm not just talking about discussions regardign her behavior, but article content issues as well); and before this aspergers claim, never even seen her acknowledge that a problem existed. Due to this lack of actual evidence I'm really not in favor of even a heavily restricted unblock, and if it is to be considered, it would have to be at some point in the significant future. Definitely not now. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:27, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

With the comments made to her talk page of late, it doesn't change my opinion either. I think editors should look at her talk page and/or her history to see the comments still being made there. I know I'm an involved editor but I feel this block is the right thing for the project and the editors who have had past conflicts with her to keep this block in place for it's full duration. Also I think this all should stay open through tomorrow to give editors a chance to see this. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Obviously I agree with this action taken. I think everyone has been patient with her and some even tried hard to help her with her different issues. For those who do not realize, I am definitely considered an involved editor so take what I say with a grain of salt. With that being said, I don't see anything else that would end the many problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. We can't give her an interaction ban for everyone she has an issue with. --Rschen7754 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The vast majority of editors don't have any type of interaction ban, and to keep editing here SRQ would likely require several more. I'd have no problem with her returning to editing if she would acknowledge that she is at fault, agree t some very narrow editing restrictions, and get a mentor. AniMate 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - SRQ is now claiming, on her talk page, to have a medical condition -- aspergers syndrome -- which she says (or implies) prevents her from communicating collegially. Regardless of whatever truth there may be to that, it seems impractical to me to make special accommodations for those kinds of claims on Wikipedia. It may be the case, however unfortunate, that people making such a claim will need to find other outlets. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:20, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTTHERAPY, to add to that. --Rschen7754 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per what I said in the last ANI thread regarding SRQ: [53]. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. There's a limit to how much time the community is willing to put into resolving one dispute after another. However, if she agrees to AniMate's conditions, I've no problem with her coming back in a month or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Per above. I just recently came into this, and have been flabbergasted to see how long this has been going on. SRQ has been blocked, and then gets unblocked after having a pity party making an admin feel sorry for her. Finally an admin, SarekOfVulcan, has brought some resolution to this. I just hope we all can get back at contributing to the project without having to be sidetracked by these avoidable and disruptive disputes. Thank you, Sarek. I also hope other admins feel the same way and support your decision. —Mike Allen 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of any personal issues or conditions she's claimed, Wikipedia has turned into a battleground for her and anyone who crosses her path. I'd support an unblock somewhere down the line if she ever calms down, but for now, it's a good idea to prevent further disruption. Also, last time she was blocked, SRQ continued her conflicts at great length on her talk page. As that kind of behavior obviously doesn't do anything to calm down the situation, I'd advise an admin keep an eye on the page in hopes of the block having the desired effect. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not convinced that SRQ can change her behavior, so I'm concerned that any future lifting of the ban be under very tightly controlled conditions, not just an opening of the door. AniMate's suggestion would seem to cover that, but I'd suggest it not be made available until a suitable period of time has passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia can only work if editors work collegially with other editors. Whatever the reasons for anyone's inability to do so, it cannot be an optional aspect of editing here. If an editor has difficulty working with others, then it may be possible to offer support and assistance through mentoring ... but the bottom line is that avoiding the battleground is a necessity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, this CAT:RFU regular does not play well with others nor do I think she ever will. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - SRQ's willingness to express self awareness of her difficulties in interracting seems to be pretty new, even though the problem is pretty old, and there was no expression of self awareness when she was targetting other editors. Rather than her medical condition being the mitigating factor that she seems to be indicating, if she genuinely finds it difficult to interract with other editors in a manner that the community considers acceptable, this is not the place for her. I question the usefulness of mentoring someone who has rebuked editors who have attempted to advise her as soon as they've said something critical of her, but if it happens it must be tightly controlled. We can't create an environment of comfort to accommodate one editor if the result is discomfort for any number of other editors that may attract her attention. Rossrs (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. Noting that from such a strong consensus that this is not a mere de facto ban anymore; it's a formal community ban so no administrator can unilaterally reverse SarekofVulcan's action; if SRQ wants to appeal the ban, someone will need to bring it back to the community on her behalf or she'll have to appeal to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support for not assuming enough good faith and all of the above, plus the fact that this revert is not what I call vandalism. Minimac (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was against this ban until today, when I was horrified to find that SRQ continued to engage in the same problematic behavior on her own talk page, even while blocked. This user refuses to make the right choices, even when explicitly presented with them. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I hadn't planned on commenting on this any further than my history lesson above, but her ongoing belligerent behavior on her talk page further demonstrates her inability to work with others. (edit conflict) And I see I'm not the only one with this opinion. -FeralDruid (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on existing interaction ban

I have asked these questions at Sarek's talk page here. I thought that maybe these should be asked here instead. There is a no interaction in place against Wildhartlive and SRQ. There is also protection at the Charles Karel Bouley article due to problems there also. May they both be lifted now that SRQ is blocked for a year since she is one of the main reasons for both of these actions? WHL and I would like to work on the Charles Manson article but she can't as long as the no interaction is in place since SRQ did a major rewrite of that article. As to the Bouley article, I believe other editors will now feel more comfortable about returning to edit there now that there should be no more controversies like what locked the article up to begin with, at least I hope. Thoughts please, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection on the Bouley article in the hopes that POV edit warring will not resume. I'd like some input on the second question, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason the interaction ban as it stands should continue so long as SRQ is banned. I'd say WHL should continue to be banned from SRQ's talk page though, not that I think there's any reason she would post there, but it might still be a good idea to keep that restriction "on the books". Equazcion ^(talk) 16:15, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• I personally think that the interaction ban is now moot with the block of SRQ. I support lifting the ban and also see no problem with what Equazcion says about keeping WHL from commenting on SRQ's talk page. With this block, I see no reason once everything is ironed out about past events, for any of us to talk or mention SRQ again while the block is still in affect. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. SRQ's banning seems to have unanimous support, and I'm pretty sure WHL won't be commenting on SRQ's talk page. No reason I can see to keep the interaction ban in place for anything but the talk page (a formality, really)... Doc9871 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree -FeralDruid (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree: I see no reason why WHL would comment on her talk page. Also, an interaction ban is pointless, now, since there can't be any further interactions on articles while SRQ is banned. —Mike Allen 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

user:Zlykinskyja's conduct at AFD page

Misusing AFD page for personal attacks and unrelated personal "disputes" after several explanations and warnings. I think she has reached a limit that warrants a strong warning or even a short block if that is what it takes to stop the disruption. User is currently also discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts# user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages (conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher but stale right now. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I kindly tried to ask her to refrain from assuming bad faith, here, but she first shifted the topic here and, then, one minute later, she erased all, as can be seen here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Zlykinskyja seems to be assuming bad faith in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief and is making a lot of accusations against Magnificent Clean-keeper for things like alleged "wikihounding". I raised concerns about Zlykinskyja's previous personal attacks on me in the Wikiquette discussion mentioned above. I am concerned that, in response, she seemed extremely reluctant to take responsibility for her actions and instead suggested that the remedy for the problem would be some sort of mediation. She received some good advice from independent editors, there, but does not seem to be taking note of it. However, I'm not an independent editor: I have disagreed with a lot of her edits in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and, as mentioned, have been on the receiving end of a lot her personal attacks. Bluewave (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This latest attack against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper comes after a few days ago when he and Salvio Giuliano agreed that they would start using "vinegar" against me after I failed to respond to their "honey". What this "honey" has actually been involves a long pattern of harassment and hostility against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper. He has recently engaged in trying to instigate incidents by WikiHounding me --following me to other articles. This is against Wikipedia policy. He has also made the threat to "get rough" with me. He used profanity against me, although he would know that most women would be offended by the "F" word. He refers to my comments as "B.S." or rants. Most annoyingly, he has engaged in a pattern of repeatedly deleting my work, over and over in a most unreasonable manner, trying to instigate an edit war. I feel that he should be sanctioned for harassing me and WikiHounding me. Under WikiHounding policies, it is considered harassment to follow someone to another article to interfere with another editor's enjoyment of editing. That he has certainly done to me on the Linda Carty article, and now in another manner on the new Delayed Grief article. I feel that he is trying to instigate and provoke disputes, intimidate me and bully me from participating in writing on this website. He has the support of some biased allies, including Bluewave and Salvio Giuliano, who support him in his efforts to cause difficulty for me in having my edits included on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I did report this on ANI several days ago, but the report was ignored. I hope that ANI will provide me with some assistance so that I can participate in Wikipedia without feeling intimidated by him and the allies who support such wrongful conduct. I have said that this started as a content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, but he is now trying to make it personal and extending things beyond that one article. He has made it clear for a while now that his intention is to get me banned or blocked as a form of intimidation in connection with the editing disputes on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, like she did at Wikiquette, she keeps on accusing me and other editors w/o any diff's to proof. What she is basically doing is making accusations to try to turn the sword against me (while doing quite the opposite at the Murder of Meredith Kercher's article). Although the latter seems somehow funny, It is not to me. I was hoping for some minor difference to her usual response but I guess I expected to much as she just replied with the same old unfounded accusations like she has it still saved in her mouse. I would like to remind everybody, that this thread that I started is about Zlykinskyja's behavior problems, not mine, and I told her on several occasions that if she has a complain against me she can file one at several available boards, including here at ANI but instead, her preference still lays in engaging in unfounded complains and incivility on her talk page (where she constantly deletes and changes headings although only the ones that doesn't suit her well) and elsewhere.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did raise this issue at ANI a few days ago, as a comment in a complaint someone else filed against The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, but my issues apparently were overlooked. I am not someone who goes around filing complaints about people and trying to intimidate people, as he does. I have never filed an official complaint against anyone. But looking at the official ANI records, his name comes up as someone who seems to go after people a lot. Well, that isn't my style. I tried to raise the issue as a comment on ANI, but the information was overlooked, and then things with him only got worse. But I do think his conduct which is provoking my distress should be considered. If you look at the article deletion page he refers to, I was trying to raise the same issues I tried to raise previously on the ANI in the complaint that was promptly closed. His behavior is a problem, a BIG problem for me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out. This was the "incident" that was closed rather quickly and for good reasons. If you have a complain, file it or leave it.

This was the ONLY incident I ever filed at here (and it was about you under your old user name).

I'm not aware of ANI other report I filed regarding you or any one else. Any diff's to proof me wrong? Guess not as always. So proof it or loose it.

And stop trying to make this thread about me and respond to your conduct which is in question here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• BTW. About the ANI thread you mentoned and commented on: If you jump on a wagon make sure it goes in your direction.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why does your name come up 28 times in the ANI records when I put your name in? You seem to have been in a lot of these types of disputes, even if someone else filed the complaint. Your name must be popping up a big number of times in the official records for a reason. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Put an admin's name in the search box and you'll get plenty of hits too. Can you please start making sense and respond to the thread or just stop commenting like this and waste editors time as their time is at least as valuable as yours (and they don't have a SPA-account [single-purpose account] like you) but don't complain about it as you constantly do?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[ He moved my Comment out of time sequence] So that is what you meant when you said you were going back to the "old type of editor that no one would want to see", and that you intend to "get rough" with me? You intend to very agressively go after me, swear at me, WikiHound me, post on my Talk page over and over even though I pleaded with you to leave me alone, over and over I asked you to please leave me alone. But you just won't do that. It is not acceptable conduct. As I told you, I am taking care of an extremely ill family member. I just can't put up with your horrible conduct towards me while I am under a lot of stress and have to put the care of a terminally ill person first and foremost. But you just continue on and on stalking me. I have asked you over and over and over and over to please leave me alone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll not respond further to your accusations. Talk to my hand.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you now saying that you are an administrator on Wikipedia? Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Talk page discussion in which he tried to provoke a distressed response from me by: 1) following me to a new article in which he had never been involved; 2) deleting a large number of my edits without justification; 3) then deleting more of my work without justification; 4) posting helpful hints on my Talk page without acknowledging that he had just deleted most of my work; 5) thereby prompting my distressed response to his continuing pattern of deleting my work, while he deceptively looks like he is just trying to post helpful suggestions on my Talk page; 6) then linking the incident that he intentionally schemed and provoked to a discussion page (about my supposed lack of civilty towards him) on the Wikette page, and falsely using the incident to claim continuing uncivility by me. This is just one example of the nonsense I have to put up with, and why it is unreasonable to demand that I continue to assume "good faith" when dealing with him. [54] Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment (having had time to think carefully about why I'm contributing to this). My perception (just one person's point of view, of course) is as follows. Zlykinskyja's main interest in Wikipedia has been the Murder of Meredith Kercher and it is clear that she has passionate views about the subject. I think other editors actually respect this and have shown Z quite a lot of tolerance, though she probably wouldn't believe me. The article itself is quite controversial and Z herself has a history of making controversial and tendentious edits. A good example would be a recent case where there was some discussion, and an apparent consensus on the talk page, about a rewrite of a section of the article.[55] Although, Z did not contribute to the debate, she set about making some 20 edits to the text as soon as it was in place in the article. When her edits were reverted, she immediately started making personal attacks on the editors concerned, including labelling me as an "anti-Knox" editor.[56] So this is a good example of unwillingness to participate in creating a consensus, making controversial edits and then making personal attacks on people who disagree with Z. When I suggested that she raise her concerns on the talk page, so that they can be discussed, she responded by saying "take the material that I tried to include as my comment": in other words she tends to push the debate out of the talk page and into article space, where it turns into an edit war.[57] Magnificent Clean-keeper raised the issue of Z's conduct at the Wikiquette noticeboard. I thought that this might lead to some advice from an uninvolved editor and I raised my concerns there too. It did indeed lead to some good advice but there was a great reluctance by Z to accept that she is responsible for incivility that others find quite unpleasant. From Z's contributions to the AFD and recent edits to the Kercher article, I don't think she has taken on board the guidance that has been given. Hence, I think there is the need for someone who has the power of sanctions to examine the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave's comment discusses an incident which reflects the ongoing problems over the content of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There has indeed been a big problem on the article in terms of having both sides of the story included, BLP respected, and NPOV achieved. This is why I had suggested mediation, but it seems that there has recently been an attempt to make things "personal" so that the conflict now looks like interpersonal disputes, when the underlying dispute has been over the content of the article. (I do not think that is the case with The Magnificent Clean-Keeper any longer though. I think he has an anger towards me that has become personal and that his intention now is to give me a very hard time and ultimately to get me banned or blocked.) In terms of the content dispute, the problem is that most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story. In terms of the "other" side of the story, which can be described as "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me. Another poster named Wikid77 sometimes edits on that side as well, but sometimes edits on the other side too. He does not seem to contribute on a regular basis any longer due to the disputes. Because it is often just me up against Bluewave, Salvio Giuliano, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and a few others on the other side of the case, I have been given a very difficult time and my work is often deleted or challenged and then deleted. But BOTH sides of the story need to be included in order for NPOV to be achieved and BLP to be respected. The defendants in the murder case are still "presumed innocent" until the judicial process is completed and their guilt or innocence finally determined, which will take a few years. In the meantime, both BLP and NPOV require that BOTH sides of the story be included--which means that information both as to their possible guilt and as to their possible innocence should be included. But most of the editors will allow only information tending to show their guilt to be included. So we have a struggle as to including both sides of the story, achieving NPOV and complying with BLP. But for Bluewave or any other editor to say that this dispute is all my fault is not truthful or sincere, since my struggles are to try to include the information which they do not want in the article--which shows the "other" side of the story. Without my lonely struggles to include the "other' side of the story, this article would read like Amanda Knox was a terrible person who sexually assaulted, stabbed, strangled, beat, stabbed and killed her roomate, when none of this has been finally determined. Knox stands innocent until proven guilty and she faces another trial in the Fall in which she could be acquitted. Large numbers of people in the U.S., including public officials and public figures, believe that she has been unjustly accused and never harmed her roommate. Until her guilt or innocence is finally determined, BOTH sides of the story, including the possibility of her innocence should be allowed in the article. It would be helpful if an administrator could help emphasize that NPOV and BLP require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not about the content of the article; it's about the way you behave towards all those who don't agree with you; that can be seen on the AFD page, but I can provide tons of diffs if needed. Please, try not to shift the topic, here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from User:Wikid77 - I have been very busy on other articles (and fixing complex calculations in Template:Convert), but I noticed that User:Zlykinskyja has been warning people of WikiHounding activities. I did not realize, until today, that WP:Wikihounding (formerly called "wikistalking" until 27-Oct-2008) is part of WP:Harrassment and is a formal behavior problem that can quickly result in users being blocked. User:Zlykinskyja has been a part-time user, someone working on relatively few articles, and now working to improve articles on legal topics, such as the convicted Linda Carty. I think the claims of wikihounding are correct, and User:Zlykinskyja is in need of protection, at this point, at least in warning other users to not follow along, not hound, and not revert corrections to the next article being edited. Some users seem to have crossed the line, such as User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, by twice reverting major improvements/corrections to another hounded article ("Linda Carty"), perhaps at the suggestion of another user to target that article, as a form of collusion in hounding. I'm not sure that any of them knew about policy WP:Wikihounding, but User:Zlykinskyja certainly asked them to stop, multiple times, both on article talk-pages and on their user-talk pages. They can't pretend they haven't been warned. I realize evidence is needed to support my views, so I suggest the history of article "Linda Carty" (the British/American woman on death row in Texas). I finally took time to review the many improved edits made by User:Zlykinskyja, who corrected errors in that WP:BLP article (ranks #2 in Google, with 46,000 hits about Linda Carty), and then added sources, and then expanded the text. However, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper decided to revert most of the improvements to article "Linda Carty", 2 times, and restored glaring errors, such as Linda Carty charged with "Capital Punishment" which, of course, is a punishment, not a criminal charge. Those erroneous reverts to "Linda Carty" were shocking:

• 1st revert re-adding errors (18:14, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349650340
• 2nd revert re-adding errors (19:47, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349666236

I was shocked about anyone wanting to de-correct a WP:BLP article, anyone wanting to re-introduce errors 2x, when User:Zlykinskyja had improved the notable article about this dual-citizen (of interest to both British & American readers) and had described her fate at Mountain View Unit (women's death row), on that very real hillside midway between Houston and Dallas, Texas. Why would someone risk scrambling and hacking such an article, twice, on Wikipedia? Articles about British-American citizens on death row should not be hacked and have errors re-added. So, if perhaps User:Zlykinskyja seems a little upset, please understand the prior massive rescue to a high-profile article on Wikipedia and having to correct problems 3 times, in total, to make Wikipedia seem a better source about such an important legal issue: the execution of a British citizen when capital punishment has been banned in the UK. I advise: tell other users to stop the wikihounding, stop reverting improvements to high-profile articles, and stop submitting frivolous ANI reports about User:Zlykinskyja. The future contributions of User:Zlykinskyja are incalculable to Wikipedia, and I've worked on many thousands of articles, so I think I know whereof I speak. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wikid77. I do feel that I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia in the long run, if only those pushing their own obvious agendas on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article--to present Amanda Knox as guilty of a violent sexual assault and murder--would stop trying to block my participation with these unfair and unethical tactics. These tactics of reporting me on trumped up charges, WikiHounding, intentional provocations, making threats, repeatedly deleting my work over and over and over, are really all aimed at one thing---preventing me from adding the "other side of the story" to the Kercher murder article. The aggressiveness that has been used to try to block and intimidate me from including the "other side of the story" has indeed been shameful. And it needs to come to a stop. Amanda Knox, a young student from Seattle, Washington, is a real person, a living person who is entitled to the protections afforded by the BLP policy on Wikipedia. Yet, there are a few editors who have gone to great lengths to block me from trying to provide some control on the article in terms of defamation. I have had to remove, modify or correct a great deal of information in the article that has been false and defamatory towards her and Raffaele Sollecito and in violation of BLP policy. I have tried to add information that tends to show that she is innocent until proven guilty in a final judicial proceeding, and that no final determination of guilt has yet been made. For this effort, a huge number of hours of my time has been taken up trying to stop these same editors from removing my corrections and edits. Yet, my editing has been in compliance with BLP policy, while some other editors are working against BLP policy. Now they have gone to the next step of aggression by trying these personal attacks to get me blocked or banned. It is not a coincidence that the edits of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Salvio Giuliano, and Bluewave and a few others of their group have been virtually ALL tending to show Amanda Knox in as negative and GUILTY a light as possible, and they object to most all my edits adopting a more tolerant view of her---and now they are trying to say these disputes occur because of my "conduct." No, the overriding "conduct" in this situation is that a clique of editors is trying many tactics to block me from participating, so that they can write up Amanda Knox in the article to look as guilty as possible, and that article will be on display for the world to read as she goes for her second trial this Fall. This whole thing, in my opinion, is morally and ethically wrong, and could end up violating the rights of Amanda Knox to be free of defamation and adverse unfounded negative pre-trial publicity, and violates many Wikipedia policies including NPOV and BLP. There should be no such thing as a criminal Trial by Wikipedia. Amanda Knox remains innocent until her judicial proceedings are concluded and her guilt or innocence is finally determined. I respectfully request that these editors be admonished to cease trying to block my participation on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, and from WikiHounding me to any other article as further intimidation against my participation. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bring this discussion back to the subject in hand...namely Zlykinskyja's conduct...I think some of her posts above illustrate very well the points that I was trying to make earlier.

• It appears that Z thinks she is on a mission to insert a particular point of view into the Meredith Kercher article: she says, for example, In terms [of editing] ... the ... "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me.
• She assumes bad faith on the part of most other editors: most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story.
• Whenever incivility is mentioned, she cites content disputes as the cause. This suggests that, based on her belief in the bad faith of other editors, she thinks she is justified in being uncivil.
• She assumes consensus will go against her and doesn't accept the need to engage in the consensus process [policies] require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise.

All these things are driving other editors to despair. Bluewave (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% educated on this discussion, but Zlykinskyja, as far as your arguments, I think you might want to read WP:TLDR. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary: this editor has been assuming bad faith on the part of other users ever since she started editing the MoMK article — a few examples out of many here she immediately assumes censorship, after her edit was reverted; "Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship."; claims of defamation; "The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop."; claims of "Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor"; "The rules for this article are more: 1)if it makes Knox look good, it must be deleted; 2)if it makes Knox look bad, it stays."; "But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it?"; "The anti-Knox editors should not be deleting, censoring and blocking contributions by pro-defense editors"; "Efforts by Anti-Knox Editors to Restrict Participation By Pro-defense Editors"; "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US."; "I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time."; do I have to continue? BTW, sorry, if I have been verbose, here ;) — was blocked for sockpuppeting and legally threatened the admin who had blocked her [58], after wikilawyering. She thinks that all those who don't agree with her are wrong, trying to censor her or wikihounding her. The episode of alleged wikihounding took place a week or so ago, but she was lamenting our censorship way before then; she is apparently confusing the correct succession of events.

Here she clarifies her "agenda". Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that in response to my sincere statement on the extended content dispute over the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, the same editors who have been part of the improper effort to obstruct my efforts to participate to present the "other side of the story" in the article are now throwing the kitchen sink at me. This is part of their continuing effort to divert attention from the major problem with the article--their own efforts to allow only one side of the story in violation of the fundamental policies of NPOV and BLP. It will take me a while to do the proper research to respond to these additional accusations: I am still trying to learn how to do diffs, but will try to collect some to provide further information. I intend to return to provide a response as soon as I can reasonably do so, given illness in the family and other real world obligations. Thank you for your patience. I will just reply briefly now that there is nothing that I have ever said or done that excuses the WikiHounding that has occurred. WikiHounding is a form of harassment under Wikipedia policy, and trying to cast the person who was subjected to it as the wrongdoer can never be justified. It is not improper to object to WikiHounding, it is the effort to engage in WikiHounding that is wrongful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80

What's old

71.246.35.80 (contributions), aka Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. (contributions), has strongly held views on Ebonics and related matters, and on those who disagree with these views. So far so good. However, he may have mistaken the article or the talk page for his own lecture podium, he lectures at some length, and he has a taste for canine-themed and other contumely. The main object of the contumely is me. I don't mind the latter aspect of it at all -- indeed, it's quite a novelty for me to have a previously unimagined neurological disorder diagnosed in Wikipedia of all places -- but the fact that it's me who's the main butt of the doggy metaphors and claims of mental disorder, added to the possibility that somebody might claim that I'm attempting to gag the other side in a content dispute, makes me leery of taking measures I'd take in a twinkling if I'd suddenly arrived at this article and its talk page. I shan't even specify the measures here, and instead leave the choice among them to the discretion of whichever admin cares to look at Talk:Ebonics. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Smith's views on this topic are apparently very WP:FRINGEy -- see this NYT article -- and he's definitely here to push that POV, and nothing else. He also seems to be incapable of collegial behavior, and is apparently of the sort that thinks it's OK to call someone an asshole if you do it in 150 words (12 of which you have to look up to be sure of what they mean) rather than 4. So, he's an uncivil, POV-pushing, OR-adding, logorrheic WP:TRUTH-warrior who's not here to help build an impartial encyclopedia - for what reason do we need this person around? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one point to avoid a potential misunderstanding. WP has an article on African American Vernacular English. A little controversially, it also has an article on Ebonics. (I'm fully in favor of the existence of both articles and defended the latter at its AfD from charges such as that it was merely a fork of the former.) The views of the real-world Ernie A. Smith are of particular importance within the Ebonics article (though of minor importance within the AAVE article). I now think that this user is indeed the Ernie A. Smith that he claims to be. His POV is very important -- but it should be added to the article in the usual way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and were he capable of editing in the proper manner, and within the recommendations of WP:COI, he could potentially be a big help -- but it's clear that this is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this editor does indeed seem to be Smith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80 again

User:71.246.35.80 (talk), who plausibly claims to be Ernie A. Smith, has yet again added a little speech to Ebonics. I happen to think that some of what he says this time is very reasonable, but this is beside the point: he's yet again showing himself to be stunningly unaware of, or unconcerned with, the principles of editing. In view of his merrily expressed disgust at me on the same article's talk page (disgust that doesn't worry me in the slightest, btw), my own reluctant deployment of an administratudinal cluebat might look personal, and so I again leave the matter to whichever uninvolved administrator happens to see this AN/I thread. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Quite a bit of the article to who whose content 71.246.35.80 so strongly objects was written by me. And so the imaginable charge of misuse of administratorial red buttons to further my line in a content dispute again makes me reluctant to "be bold". -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's wayyy too much reading for me at this time of night! Aside from the behavioural issues, I don't see an OTRS ticket number at the named account. This is a presumably living person, so isn't that ticket or block? And the IP is giving the appearnce of posting in the name of a living and by the sounds of it prominent person - that's not on at all is it? Sure it seems plausible they are the person, but it doesn't work that way here. I could do a pretty good Jimbo Wales impression I bet. Franamax (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point, the user seems to be steering towards a more civil path (see this exchange). Mr. Smith (and I have no reason to assume he is otherwise, ticket or no) is new to Wikipedia and any actions should consider WP:BITE, even if he is a bit chompy himself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: And now, talk of pedophilia

Having earlier wondered about my reaction if somebody were to claim that "Wikipedia" were a blend of "wicked" and "pedophilia" (a thought experiment that did not offend me in the slightest, and to which I think I replied courteously), 71.246.35.80 most recently writes, I would not be surprised if a pedophile porn web-site suddenly appears with the name Hory's Wickedpidiah very soon.

This was several hours ago; 71.246.35.80 has had ample time to think better of the remark and amend or delete it. But he has done neither.

If 71.246.35.80 is just blowing hot air, the hot air is unusually malodorous. If he's not just blowing hot air, then the world really doesn't need "a pedophile porn web-site", whether it's named after Wikipedia, a musical, some village, or myself. But the naming would surely not be coincidental; is 71.246.35.80 perhaps planning to create such a website himself? We alert "the authorities" when there's something that might be interpretable as a suicide threat; perhaps we should alert them here.

As an administrator, I'd take prompt and strong action against this IP. But since this seems to have become personal, I'll refrain from touching my own admin mop, bucket, and red buttons, and I'll instead leave the decisions and actions to others. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, because warnings haven't worked. If diruption continues when the block expires, I suggest a quick escalation to a long block. This user has all the hallmarks of a serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block - I cautioned this editor about this exact type of activity when he was using the account Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. (talk · contribs). Dr. Smith has a reputation of activism and pushing his viewpoints on Ebonics, which largely are not accepted by mainstream linguists. I gently tried explaining that neither are acceptable here, but it looks like I have been ignored. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Puzzlement at Caknuck's comment. The IP seems to be doing various things that he shouldn't be. However, there's a reason (explained both in Ebonics itself and in AfD/Ebonics) why there's an article on Ebonics in addition to that on AAVE, and much of the reason concerns minority positions in linguistics. John Baugh has analyzed the term "Ebonics" as having four definitions, and he attributes one of these to Smith. As far as I'm concerned, Smith is welcome to use the article talk page to help in an understanding of this or any other of the three definitions, or to explain how Baugh is mistaken. However, he has to do so by citing published work, by presenting his PoV as dispassionately as anybody else might, and concisely. (He's also free to insult me, if doing so amuses him and he's brief about it. Later, I may adorn my user page with one or two of the juiciest examples.) However, he should argue rather than rant, and should not hint at an intention to create a kiddyporn website, especially one under a false flag. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ... reworded a bit Hoary (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That and he should use about a tenth as many words. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It might also be worth applying WP:TALK fairly strictly on that article; an extensive vocabulary and clever (albeit pompous) rhetorical style doesn't automatically indicate the possession of either effective communication skills or clue. EyeSerene^talk 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Those techniques are most effective when used oratorically: one can be "swept away" by the sound and the emotional tone, with the occasional nugget of content to provide enough of a clue as to what's being said. (I think many people listen to performances of Shakespeare in this way.) Put on a page, in an age where brevity and conciseness are esteemed, it just comes off as verbose and pompose. Combine that with the editor's proclivity for elaborate personal insults and result is something I think the project can well do without. Hoary has poiinted out that Smith's opinions are important in respect to the Ebonics article, but certainly doing justice to his opinions doesn't require him to be here, not when there are reliable sources that can report those opinions without the attached vitriol and bluster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And today

(The above was copied back in from the archive.)

He's back. NB I am entirely untroubled by his vividly if curiously expressed estimation of my intellectual abilities, motivation, etc, but am worried about what appears to be a manifesto of ownership to express his own PoV. But precisely because it's me who's in his sights, my telling him what to do might look merely personal. Over to you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) refactored Hoary (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to block for a substantial period if this continues, especially if the article is disrupted but we should first see if this is an isolated edit. I see no need for anyone to respond to him at this point--everything has been said several times over. Let's see if ignoring helps. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He's doing his very best to appear like an outright crank but user:Aeusoes1 is working patiently with him. Essentially he seems to want to WP:OWN the content to the level of disputing tiny nuances as "outright lies", but the problem seems to be confined to the talk page. I suggest a watching brief at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just been pointed to this thread - my apologies if I've trodden on any toes by acting unilaterally. I had the article watchlisted and blocked the IP for 48 hours on the basis of their last talk-page post. If anyone wants to unblock due to ongoing discussion/mentorship/whatever, please do. EyeSerene^talk 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No foul, I'm sure people could do with a break. Reading his text makes your head hurt. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging from their "contributions" here and what I've read off-Wiki about this person, I can't imagine someone who would be less likely to accept and be helped by mentoring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to Hoary, it seems to me that comments like this and this could constitute troll feeding. It's tempting to comment on Smith's outside scholarship (I even did so, with restraint, here) but if editors address only his content concerns and nothing more, he'll have very little contention fuel to go on. For someone who calls Labov a Zionist for focusing on the speech of urban youth, I imagine blocks would be a vindicating indication of Wikipedia Eurocentric bias/censorship rather than an effective method of behavioral guidance. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, you point to two edits of mine. The second asks him about his scattershot (or comprehensive?) vilification, and I think requires no further comment. The former does require comment. Just yesterday I got around to looking at a Youtube video that had long been an EL to the article. It seemed worthwhile, and I transcribed part of it in the talk page. Now, all the sources on Ebonics seem to agree that Smith was important to it. Googling took me to a series of Youtube videos of Smith some time (I suppose decades) ago. I watched the first of these and was struck by various aspects of what he said. I transcribed two parts to the best of my ability, and said very little of my own (very decided) opinions on the worth of what Smith was saying: whatever its worth, some of it seems to me to explain other of his comments. This is something I'd certainly have done if Smith himself had been as absent from the talk page as are Williams, Rickford, Baugh, Wolfram and others. Since Smith instead is (or was) present and clearly unhappy, I worried a little about posting it, but in the end I thought I should not be intimidated by the likelihood that he'd take this too as the cause of more indignation -- his indignation is his problem and not that of anybody else participating in an effort to make the article a good one. ¶ I'm not keen to have Smith blocked or reblocked: I welcome his informative contributions, although I encourage conciseness and a dispassionate or anyway persuasive prose style. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding why you created the "Ernie Smith on Ebonics" section in the context of the conversation about content. I'm skeptical that you would have done this whether or not Smith had ever touched the talk page; other than to point out that Smith's views are controversial, I'm not sure what point you had in bringing it up at all, much less how it affects the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Wikipedia deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them, User:Blueboy96. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

• Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Wikipedia despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive WP:BITE failure. Our notability policy is unpopular and hard to explain. The reasons why WP:N is a good idea are rather subtle, and imposing it with a heavy handed approach is guaranteed to alienate a lot of potential editors. This débâcle has generated a lot of bad will and strengthened the reputation of wikipedia as a bureaucracy. We're not growing any more, we can't afford to piss off potential editors. We have to be more calm and patient with new users. I don't want to point fingers to User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henrik•talk 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it. WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henrik•talk 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Wikipedia, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henrik•talk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind. Blueboy96 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Wikipedia editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Wikipedia usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming Reichstag-climbing-while-dressed-as-Spider-Man contests and to properly reflect the community's (that is, a cross-section thereof) view of the whether something should be kept/deleted/etc., sometimes measures need to be taken to prevent those who do nothing but protest all over the place (like what is being done here). The fact of the matter is that those blocked accounts didn't have any other purpose here but to defend the Dwm article. With that said, blocking may not have been absolutely necessary unless clear disruption was taking place. –MuZemike 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Desysop seems appropriate (details of Blueboy96's handling of Anselmgarbe)

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

• used a real name account and said openly who he was; [59]
• came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
• said openly that he was canvased; [60]
• introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
• did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
• did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever; [61]
• probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
• did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral"); [62]
• reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead; [63]
• was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout; [64]
• stopped commenting on 25 February. [65]

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

• blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
• blocked him indefinitely;
• used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
• left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

• wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
• wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;
• did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked [66].

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I have created stubs for the following Formula One race cars: BRM P126, BRM P133‎ and BRM P138 and I am getting bombarded on my talk with some very silly notifications of speedy deletions because there is already an article about BRM the company which build those cars. I'd appreciate if somebody could fix this bot.  Dr. Loosmark  14:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, if that's all the info you can put in those articles, then they probably should be covered under the main article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And who says that's all the info I can put in those articles? I will add infobox, the results' tables, pics etc. etc. later. I can't do all in one second. Not to mention other people might and probably will expand the articles later.  Dr. Loosmark  14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And besides the repeated messages on my talk state the following: "Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - British Racing Motors. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion." My article was about a specific race car and not about the company which built them. The reason given for the Speedy Deletion is bogus.  Dr. Loosmark  14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: the messages weren't from a bot, they were from User:Codf1977. He's probably using twinkle or huggle, which I understand have the ability to fast tag articles with CSD tags and leave a message on the author's talk page. This is the sort of... "contribution" that our Wikipedia:New Page Patrol group gives us.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion requests; criterion A10 is not intended to impede reasonable article splits. I would suggest it may be a better move in future to create the articles one at a time with more than a sentence of information rather than creating multiple mini-stubs and expanding them later - but that doesn't excuse the over-enthusiastic tagging here. ~ mazca ^talk 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that they were over-enthusiastic - it looked (and still does) like one line articles created then left - one of which (BRM P139) had been created and left for a day. As they stand they add nothing. There are plenty of article templates that could have been added by the creator to show that they were a work in progress - for example {{Underconstruction}}. Codf1977 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean they add nothing? For starters there is a pic of a car which people might find interesting. Secondly the article says in which seasons the car raced which is another good information. And left for a day? Big deal, the article about the Benetton B188 was "left" for more than a week but was eventually expanded by another user and now looks very ok. Really you should stop stamping the Speedy Deletion tag where there is no need to and give the articles a chance to be expanded.  Dr. Loosmark  18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is a work in progress use an article tag or as Mjroots recommended use a sandbox. Codf1977 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You believed that a lack of further work within one day was sufficient to prove that the editor "created them and left"? I converted Damot from a misleading redirect into an article of two sentences, but due to this & that -- I have a life away from Wikipedia -- I couldn't get back to working on the article until six months had passed. I would hope most people would wait at least a week before assuming an article was "abandoned". -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Mazca here. What the hell is the point of an "article" that consists of a single line of text and most of the "article" is taken up by three infoboxes and a stub template. Wikipedia is not a directory, these are just directory entries. Please, Dr Loosmark, put some actual, you know, content into your articles because otherwise you just invite silliness like this. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Article "splits" have their validity measured in what could/ought to be there, not what was put in there in the first instance by one user. Even Earth had one line of information in it at first, I'm sure.

More people should concentrate on writing prose as opposed to spreading stuff out all over the place. That's the bad thing about infoboxes in that they give some editors excuses to not write content. –MuZemike 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's comments like this which are the primary reason that I refuse to even try starting new articles. No hyperbole or anything is needed on this issue, you guys add all the ammo on your own.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that he creates a personal sandbox and works articles up there, releasing them into mainspace once they are ready. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What's this about "us guys"? Is trying to have even an iota of quality in the encyclopedia a crime? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting in a sandbox is practical advice, and probably quite sensible for an author who prefers to save a sentence at a time over an hour or two when they start a new article. But I find it sad that we need to lose the benefits of cooperative mainspace editing, and I don't think that advice would be helpful to someone who aims to create initial short stubs on notable subjects. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Developing an article in a sandbox does not preven co-operative mainspace editing. In another editor has an additional source they can always expand the article once created. Personally, I dislike creating stubs, and aim for at least a C class article wherever possible. Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubs are fine, but this didn't even rise to that level. There is absolutely no point spinning out a single line "article" from a main article, spinning out is where a section gets too big. You can redirect to a section, so something like #REDIRECT [[BRM#P126]] would fix the "likely search term" thing and still deliver the reader to some actual usable content. The article is now a dizzying two lines long plus one (unreliable) source. It doesn't even link to the article on the manufacturer. It almost looks like a pointed attempt to get bait deletion in order to prove some point - if that's not the intent then I hope the creator will accept the constructive criticism here and next time maybe build the section in the main article until it justifies a split, with a section redirect in place until then. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree: these are not even stubs. They should be merged, either into the main article or into a combined article oin the company's car, something like List of BRM cars. If the creator of the stubs doesn't do it, somebody else should.

The speedy deletion tags were the wrong response, but they were a response to a real problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:DRV

 – Durova⁴¹² 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving procedurally because there really isn't anything more to be done at this board. The deleting administrator is not self-reverting and we don't want a wheel war. Consensus discussion can take place at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 22. The remainder could be wrapped up on user talk pages or (at worst) conduct RFC. Durova⁴¹² 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I wanted to leave a note that I deleted the image linked above (NSFW of course), which was used in the Goatse.cx article. There was an IFD on the image that resulted in keep (with fairly low participation) and there is a semi-active MedCab case about the issue as well. However, the image seems to me to be so egregiously unencyclopedic, that I deleted it despite both of those discussions. I would hope Wikipedia is a place where one could learn about such things (shock images) without actually needing to see them (there are certainly plenty of other places one can do that). While we don't censor content, that an image is offensive is not an argument to keep it either, and I don't believe that particular image is adding anything helpful to the article. Prodego ^talk 20:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to take a shot and then answer that the image should be undeleted immediately. Prodego's deletion was out of line because: a) the reasons given are not reasons for speedy deletion; b) the deletion is contrary to a recent IfD discussion that successfully rebutted the "unencyclopedic" argument and c) it's running around the mediation process by removing it during an open MedCab case. If this was any other image, it would be unthinkable that someone would get away with deletion. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was in favor at the MedCab page of deleting the image, I'd like to say that I think this deletion is entirely inappropriate. The discussion had not come to any kind of conclusion, and to unilaterally declare that you have the penultimate opinion on the issue is not at all proper. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:55, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The image, though shocking as it was. Should not have been deleted so suddenly while consensus was trying to be reached and should be reinstated until such a consensus is found.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this? Prodego, that was your personal opinion. We don't delete images just because they are offensive and it was being used in an article. Go to DRV and make a compelling argument that convinces other editors, just like any non-admin would have to do. And undelete the image yourself, or at least don't oppose when it gets restored by someone else. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

that an image is offensive is not an argument to keep it either, and I don't believe that particular image is adding anything helpful to the article Aside from the fact that this is an opinion, i would say the image is pretty relevant. After all, the entire concept of the goatse shock sites is displaying this exact image. What notability would these sites have achieved without showing this particular image to its unsuspecting viewers? In fact, i go as far as saying that the entire basis for any news coverage regarding this article - and thus the article itself - lies with that image. Other then this i think Sceptre states my thoughts perfectly. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Respect. It was totally out of process and totally the right thing to do. Hans Adler 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting an image when their was no consensus for deletion is the right thing to do? He deleted it on personal opinion, that's like me suddenly going around deleting articles because I don't like them.--SKATER ^Speak. 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, deleting this image against a local consensus was the right thing to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror or repository of shock images. We are, of course, not censored (I will not even bother linking the policy page), but nothing requires us to display shock image content that we could merely link to. We should, of course, link to websites if they are worth encyclopedic coverage - that does not violate any policy at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I like the image, but if this one goes, then so should the thousands of pictures of people's dicks on Commons. Jtrainor (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I know being bold! is a core policy of Wikipedia, but there are two issues here. Werther or not the image should remain is one issue, but overriding apparent community consensus while the issue is still being discussed is a completely different matter. I am not fond of processes which only slow decisions down, but in this case there is no snowball in a microwave. The mere fact that we are actually having a discussion about this should be proof of that. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, IfD is a local consensus? I thought that deletion discussions were the most global consensus discussions regarding content. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For that category of image everything below an RfC that is announced on WP:CENT and the village pump is local consensus. Hans Adler 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but no-one deletes articles because AfD is only a "local consensus". XfDs are understood to be binding for a good amount of time after the discussion, unless new reasons for deletion have come up. And CSD explicitly states that a page that has survived a deletion discussion should not be speedy deleted except for the case of copyright violations. And there is no copyright violation here; as far as image rationales go, it's one of the better ones. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

IfD can decide whether an image should be deleted according to some offered rationale, but it can never be a forum for establishing that an image is to be permanently considered appropriate on some article. If a non-free image is not used on an article, it goes regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but there is still no NFCC violation; the image should not have been deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Prodego seriously an admin? raseaC^{talk to me} 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Finally, someone who really does understand WP:IAR. Well done, Prodego. Risker (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On that logic, any other admin is free to IAR and restore the image. Risker might be just as congratulatory then, that yet another admin understands IAR too. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:16, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

See now, that simply demonstrates that you do not understand WP:IAR. Risker (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulating Prodego demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of being an administrator. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand it pretty well. If someone thinks the rules (against wheel-warring, in this case) prevent one from doing what they feel will improve the encyclopedia, then they may be ignored. I furthermore think it was a pretty unhelpful comment, and frankly inflammatory, to congratulate someone this way for something as simple as ignoring everyone else in favor of what you thought the best action was. IAR means ignoring the rules -- not people. I hope you understand that. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:34, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• • • We don't have a policy "Don't turn Wikipedia into a shock site". Yet. Because the case doesn't come up so often. When very exceptional cases come up for the first time we need to deal with them by bending the rules so they fit. If the rules are too stiff or a case is too far outside of what we considered when we wrote them, then the rules need to be broken. That is what IAR is for. The trick lies in understanding what is an exceptional case and what is not. Hans Adler 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• A shame that we will probably have to now waste everyone's time with a Deletion Review. This is what someone tried to pull last year with the Virgin Killer album cover as well; another single-handed deletion that ran counter to broad community consensus. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, someone should start a DRV on this, especially since it's been marked resolved for some reason... which seems excessively bureaucratic to me, but whatever. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:02, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Motion to desysop Prodego

Declaration that Wikipedia is not a shocksite

• Hans Adler 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose prudery at every turn and corner of the project. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not a big fan of the series of votes-or-maybe-polls that has suddenly sprung up here - but really, we aren't a shock site, and nothing in our policy opposing censorship requires that we must be. The purpose of the image in question is to be odious to the sensibilities of nearly every viewer, and we do not require that our articles discussing such images must be equally odious. As I said before, linking directly to the odious content is perfectly fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Waste of space and time. To discuss objectionable material, whatever its source, we must either link to it or show it here. We have technical mechanisms in place whereby our readers may choose not to view such material. That does not mean we should not make it available, either here or on Commons. One thing I find objectionable is that an image was apparently deleted out of process while there is an ongoing discussion, because even WP:IAR does not go that far. Removing the evidence from the tribunal is not, repeat not, helpful. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."[67] Hesperian 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All very well, but to effectively discuss objectionable material, it is sometimes necessary to show it, otherwise we are being fundamentally dishonest in our mission. There is no way we can do this and be academically neutral at the same time. By publishing images and ideas that some might find offensive, we do not necessarily support the thinking behind those images, or those ideas. That is the whole point behind being a encyclopedia, and not journalism. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If your response to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "That's all very well, but....", then why are you here? Hesperian 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction whatsoever between the Wikimedia Mission and what I said. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was. Yet your response was "That's all very well, but...", as though our mission statement was something to be fobbed off.

My point was that issues like this are best handled by taking a fresh look at our mission. It is your considered view that goatse.cx images "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". So be it. Hesperian 01:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "but"; you attributed that to me. And please do not attribute to me opinions which I do not hold, particularly that "goatse.cx images empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content"; there is no way I would subscribe to that view". Rodhullandemu 01:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"But" is the fourth word of your comment. You did say it, and therefore it is correct and proper that I attribute it to you. The diff is here. I attribute to you the opinion that "goatse.cx images empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content", because I cannot see any other way to read "I don't see any distinction whatsoever between the Wikimedia Mission and what I said." If you meant something else, kindly enlighten me. Hesperian 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• What Rodhullandemu said. Wikipedia is not a shock site, or a news site, or a joke site, or a memorial, or an instruction manual, or a hundred other things, but there are times in order to best be what Wikipedia is, that we need to display what some news, and jokes, and instructions, and obituaries, and even tasteless images. --GRuban (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, I can't speak to whether this particular image is required in this particular article. But I am strongly against the idea that all images one admin doesn't like get deleted against a clear consensus at the discussion. --GRuban (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Censorship here would be a failure to accurately describe the picture in necessary detail on the article page, not a failure to show the image. An encyclopedia describes' content, it doesn't provide content. Wikipedia articles on films and books don't reproduce the film or book in question, even when the relevant work is in the public domain. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does provide content. I bet almost every major painter has reproductions of their paintings in their articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value. If you can see some marginal educational benefit in displaying the goatse.cx image, kindly tell me what it is. Does it have some ineffable quality, some crucially important details that cannot be expressed in words but must be seen with the naked eye? Hesperian 01:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy. Some users have argued that since the photos are in the public domain, they should be in the article. However, they are extremely disturbing and are the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. Although the controversy surrounding the leaking of photographs satisfies WP:GNG, showing them does not. "Wikipedia is not censored" does not mean that anything goes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bit of an issue here...

I've just had to edit through protection to remove a redlinked image from a page that has been under full protection since Feb 25. I'm not sure it's appropriate to to delete the image during an ongoing dispute. I do note there have been no edits to the MedCab page in a week. If mediation has stalled, perhaps a more focused RFC, formal mediation, or arbitration may be necessary (an RFC (124kb) already ran a few months ago). –xeno^talk 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that while I understand the deletion rationale, I find it to be totally against policy to delete an image which is the subject of an ongoing content dispute when there is no legal reason for deletion. I agree, MedCab has stalled - people are entrenched and will not back down. The same will happen at every level. It doesn't matter how long we discuss this, there will never be a satisfactory answer as this isn't something that can be decided by debate - this is about feelings, and people's feelings can't be altered that way. Thus, while I must say that the deletion was out of process, I also, even as someone who thinks the image should stay, support someone taking a definitive step on the issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Rewarding admins for abusing process

I'm adding a footnote as the current direction of the DRV is very worrying. Here we have a clearly unacceptable deletion but the current deadlock on DRV seems to be leaning towards endorsing the deletion, for a strange interpretation of NFCC#1 and speedy deletions of violations thereof which I've never seen before. If this DRV does end up as an "endorse deletion", then it would be clear that we don't need our deletion and editing processes any more, and we can delete any content we just don't like for flimsy justification. And that it's acceptable for an administrator for doing so! I think that it must be emphasised that the deletion policy applies for all content; there is no "gaping man's asshole" exception. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? I think you're wrong. I know Wikipedia is not censored but that does not mean we have to make ourselves a laughing stock. Is it really difficult to understand the impact of goatse without the picture? Of course it's not. Inclusion, however sincere its motivation, makes us look puerile and undermines the credibility of the project with the mainstream user for a very small benefit in establishing credibility with what I guess is the ED user demographic. We don't need this any more than we actually need the endlessly replaced and repeated uploads of random user's cocks in masturbation - a serious treatment of the subject does not actually demand the inclusion of gratuitously offensive imagery (the operative word being gratuitous). Guy (Help!) 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  The term "gratuitous" is, I feel, one of the most abused words in Wikipedia discourse. What would be gratuitous is if there were fifteen variations of Goatse in the article, all showing the man's asshole. Hell, the current amount of examples in masturbation is far more gratuitous than this. What we are using is, simply, an image in an article, in a manner clearly supported by two precedents, however you see the image: screenshots of websites, and notable images. While there is an argument that the image doesn't need to be used, successful application would only be possible if there was a wave of deletions of notable images/website screenshots to reflect this way of thinking; I abhor doing this image first because I feel that the fair use arguments are being used as a masquerade for personal distaste. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• IMO the most over-used words are "censorhip" and "suppression". YMMV. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• You do have a point. "Harassment", too, is abused a lot too. And, honestly, I hate the misuse of these words, hence why I wrote WP:HA#NOT and WP:MINORITY. However, in this case, I believe there is a case to put forwarded that removal without the utmost care might be construed as censorship. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oh there we are in total agreement: not only could it be construed as censorship, it undoubtedly will be. Luckily we can ignore such foolishness and look at the real question, which is: is the encyclopaedic value of a picture of a gaping arse sufficient to support a fair use rationale for unfree content. I do have a lingering suspicion that at least some of those who stir up crap in favour of these and pictures of j. random editor's knob on penis and so on are basically trolling us. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thankfully there has been a wave of saner heads weighing in within the last few hours, and it looks like roughly 2-1 in favor of a overturn at present. Most of the endorses do not legitimately address the actions of the deleting admin and instead focus on rationales for why they want the image deleted, falling back on an NFCC #1 red herring. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• The thread closure does not "reward" anyone or any action. Editors are welcome to initiate other means to resolve remaining grievances. Durova⁴¹² 15:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any reward being granted. If Prodego gets involved in some contentious situation in the future (and of course he will, he's an admin) or some borderline trouble, someone is going to dredge this up to haunt him. These kinds of things aren't easily forgotten. -- Atama頭 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• This sub-section was begun early in the DRV process, where a slew of early endorsements perhaps made it look like the community was about to endorse a community-flouting administrative action. As it has clearly swung the other way since then, I think this is now moot. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• The suitability of a venue change really doesn't depend upon which way the consensus goes. This is strictly procedural to establish a clear solution that the community will accept. It's not supposed to steer toward either outcome. Durova⁴¹² 22:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I took Sceptre's comment to be a general observation of how the DRV itself was trending at that point in time, not on your creation of it or on the closure of this AN/I. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• However, there are two aspect here: First, the act of unilaterally deleting an image out-of-process, against the result of a past XfD, and ignoring ongoing mediation, and secondly, the result of that act. DRV is the proper venue to decide if the image should or should not be restored. But the proper venue to discuss the act is indeed here (or at AN, or in an RfC). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wi

There is a potential wheelwar brewing at template:Wi, judging by the recent edit history. Some of the edit summaries are getting a little heated as well.

I don't have the time or mental energy now to look into it (about to go to bed before midnight for the first time in at least a week), and it may come to nothing but some cool heads keeping an eye on it wouldn't go a miss in any event. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I'm involved and not touching the template further for now - other editors can chime in on the template talk page or my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the template from editing until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. Nakon 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW even if the article gets reverted to remove my edits I still want it permanently locked down. It's used on article pages that are user visible, and we need the stability. It is a template that is supposed to reflect policy, and should only change if the policy does. And I agree that policy doesn't always apply, there's IAR, but it seems that when this template has been applied successfully then the exceptions don't.- Wolfkeeper 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You want? That's pretty demanding, isn't it, considering there's an active dispute that your interpretation of policy is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not demanding at all. It's a template, having a locked down user-visible template is pretty normal. As you're aware, locking it down doesn't necessarily mean that it's locked down at the right version, and I acknowledge that that may (or may not) be the case right now.- Wolfkeeper 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"It's used on article pages that are user visible, and we need the stability." This is exactly why you should get consensus for changes at the talkpage first instead of edit warring. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And why did you revert a 3RR warning from NeilN with an edit summary referring to him as a "template vandal"? Edits made in good faith during a content dispute are not vandalism, and the editors who make them shouldn't be referred to as "vandals". You've been around here long enough to know that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper has been blocked four times for edit warring over the years, but they're still trying to get their edits through by repeatedly reverting instead of engaging in discussion to get consensus for their changes. In this case it looks like they only started discussing the subject after the template was protected. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that their claims/edits to the effect that it's a matter of interpretation were being made with good faith. I'm really, really sorry to say this, but all the evidence is that they aren't. I'm sure that Wi template was originally written in that way by somebody in good faith (due to a common myth to that effect), but if you compare the policy, in actual fact the policy says, explicitly says, exactly the opposite, and always has done, right back to 2002. And Quiddity definitely knows this, and even NeilN has since admitted that I was right at least about it not being to do with article size, which was what he was reverting.

Look, if the template isn't supposed to reflect the policy that it actually refers to, what does it reflect? No, if they're right that this is a good idea, then they need to change the policy; edit warring when it has been repeatedly pointed out that the policy is different, and editing to deliberately mislead the users as to what the policy is, really isn't on. We don't allow people to deliberately invert meanings in articles, and we certainly don't allow that in templates either. Doing that is abuse of editing privileges.- Wolfkeeper 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the only editor who is adamantly interpreting the NOTDICT policy differently. Hence your preparation of an afd for Negro. However the vast majority of the community, understands NOTDICT more closely to User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words (I'm basing this on the last 2 years worth of discussions you've started).

Yes, 1 sentence/paragraph dictionarydefs should be moved/redirected to Wiktionary (eg Hoo-hah). However, encyclopedic articles on notable words (phrases, terms) should not. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the policy, and this is isn't a policy discussion page.- Wolfkeeper 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite protection of high visibility template, WP:TROUTs all round and take it to the template's talk page please. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Need more awareness

Is it too much to ask to get some extra eyes on articles related to the this, this, this, and this? I'm getting tired of being the only goddamned admin paying attention to this fucking mental defective. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that'll get people rushing to help. Good on ya. HalfShadow 02:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the harsh language, but this is really starting to torque me off. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want regular editors helping out, I find the Content noticeboard a good place for asking for more eyes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I want more admins keeping an eye on these articles. The rank-and-file either doesn't know about AIV/ANI or doesn't give a rat's ass to report him on sight, despite the LOBU and LTA listings. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many would complain if you semi-protected those articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-prot doesn't do shit - he's more than willing to make sleeper socks as it is to hit this, which is presently semi'd due to him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it'll make it harder and reduce the pay-off. Setting up sleepers is still significant work. henrik•talk 11:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Added these to my watchlist and read up on case (Jeremy's description above, seems like a not-inaccurate depiction, despite the language). If you want to push conspiracies, go for it - just not here. Seems like a classic case of someone who should not be welcome in any way, shape or form. henrik•talk 11:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The day Wikipedia makes someone so angry they start mouthing off on the ANI board is the day to take a break. You are sat at a keyboard, it's not as if you are speaking before you think. Kindly stop the language, there is no need for it. SGGH ^ping! 07:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not kindergarten, the vandal is an obsessive tosser who needs to get a life and leave us alone, the alert tells us that an admin dealing with a long-term abuser is risking burnout, this is important information. So please consider offering support rather than brickbats. It is a thankless and often stressful task protecting Wikipedia from cretins like the Sanders vandal. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't believe that it's necessary. SGGH ^ping! 11:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is necessary, we're all volunteers and Wikipedia is, to borrow a phrase from fandom, just a goddamn hobby. Burnout is a real problem especially when dealing with long term abuse. Why not wander along to Jeske's talk page and offer some tea and support? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted all of them. GedUK  14:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Good Lord, is that the stupidest LTA case to date? Wknight94 ^talk 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Read and weep: [68]. –MuZemike 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that semi-protection does seem to work in this case (as in most cases). If it needs to be permanent, then so be it. Wknight94 ^talk 16:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Um... what...the... I think the less said the better. Orderinchaos 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Chicken soaking in the water of life?!? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I see those four articles above aren't the issue. He's all over the place: Stanley Williams 86 (talk · contribs), George Noory Fan (talk · contribs). So I'm not even sure what to watch list. If, for whatever reason, his goal is to get all X-files episode articles permanently semi-protected, let's give him his wish. Wknight94 ^talk 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I said articles related to those, not those specific articles. Don't forget about the abuse filter set up to stymie him (#287); he usually trips it at least once with each sock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jeremy, I'm watching all of these articles and for JI Hawkins abuse in general. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Having looked at a couple of this person's edits, I seriously doubt that he is a "mental defective", but undoubtedly a troll who managed to hit a sensitive nerve in Jeremy. (Then again, if I'm wrong, maybe we ought to create a policy that no one is allowed to edit Wikipedia while wearing a tinfoil hat, due to a special, extra-secret extension to the MediaWiki engine which allows us to reverse the effects of tinfoil hats & turn people into our slaves.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jeremy, sorry I missed "related" above - must not have gotten through my read-every-third-word filter. Speaking of filter, I left a comment in your abuse filter... Wknight94 ^talk 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Dili

User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is removing systematically the symbols of the city of Dili alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, he didn´t bring any relaiable source about the topic until now and is just deleting images for personal taste. Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the above user posted a notice similar to the above on 43 user talk pages. One of the most blatant examples of canvassing during an editing dispute that I've ever seen! Orderinchaos 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornell South article a hoax? Where is the proof?

Resolved

 – DRV is over there. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• 05:15, 8 September 2007 Satori Son (talk | contribs) deleted "Cornell South" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: "Article is incoherent and is likely a hoax.")

What about the article was incoherent, and who gave you the authority to judge it's authenticity? How is it "likely a hoax? How did you determine this conclusion?

Google it. That's ok, I did it for you:

Cornell South | Facebook Cornell South is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Cornell South and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the ... www.facebook.com/people/Cornell-South/100000399171987 - Cached —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.7.17 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook isn't a verifiable source. Even if the article wasn't a hoax, where's the notability? Facebook doesn't establish notability either. You needed to place these things in the article before publishing it on Wikipedia. There's a disclaimer on every edit page that states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Dusti^SPEAK!! 06:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• So he has a facebook page? So do millions of other non-notable people. What you have failed to do is tell anyone why he should have an article. Care to give that a shot? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, not a PR website. See WP:NOT. It's not clear that the article had any non-press-release content.

Having a Facebook page is entirely appropriate for struggling / new recording artists. Having a Wikipedia entry is determined by verifyable success and notability, independent journalistic and critical coverage of one's music career, etc. Just putting out your own PR specifically does not make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia page.

Not everyone understands or agrees with this - but it's our policy and has been nearly since the encyclopedia was created. If you want to advertise yourself, please go somewhere else. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, facebook doesn't cut it. Please see WP:MUSIC or consult with an experienced editor in this area such as User:Kww. Proper deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the information of all, I just looked at this a bit more closely and this is an article that was deleted in September of 2007!!. Here is an extract from the deleted article:

Central Georgia has a lot to offer as the "crossroads of the south." Bibb County has a city called Macon within borders. Macon is the city where artists like James Brown and Otis Redding launched their careers.

As a native resident of the city called Macon, Cornell South aka C-GAR (Composer/Graphic Artist/Rapper) has a rich musical heritage that keeps Georgia on his mind. A self-proclaimed "knomad," Mr. South has gained some valuable insight during his journeys. "Out of anything you may encounter; if it doesn't kill you, it can only make you stronger."

Prosecution rests.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh!! Ma and Pa told me that last night while eatin' our corn bread and weenies! Dusti^SPEAK!! 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody gave a crap about it for a week while it had a prod tag on it....then 2.5 years later, an IP editor decides to complain that a non-notable guy with a facebook page got deleted. Move along, nothing to see here. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP, which geolocates to Eastman, Georgia, hasn't edited since 2007. Here's the scenario: someone – the artist, a friend, relative or fan – creates the page and goes about his or her business. A couple of years later, when they go to look at it... it's gone!!, and "where do you get the right" etc. etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well since it was only a prod, anyone is allowed to recreate it or ask nicely for Cornell South to be returned. Is anyone asking? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

{{sfx: crickets chirping}} -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Asylummusicmanagement

Resolved

 – ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had reported this username as being promotional, partly because the user created Richard Jay, a musician's biography. It was declined by oversight sysop User:Daniel Case. I left a note on Daniel Case's talk page requesting him to review the decline. As Daniel's not replied yet, wished to bring it to the attention of other administrators. If this is an oversight move, then there's no issue with me. If it's an admin move, then it'll be nice to get a clarification why this user name is not promotional (note: the user asylummusicmanagement has not edited since 17th March 2010). Thanks, ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, conflict of interest issues do not require oversight (which is reserved for removal of highly sensitive edits, like outings). Promotional accounts, however, are forbidden and suspected accts should be reported to WP:UAA. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what my query is all about. I believe the username asylummusicmanagement is promotional in nature. I reported it at UAA, but nothing was done on that, and the name of asylummusicmanagement was removed by Daniel Case, who also happens to be on oversight. I just wanted to know why the user asylummusicmanagement was not blocked despite my notice at UAA. Just a query. Thanks. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 08:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You should probably strike "I don't want a clarification" from your comment to them, in that case. ;) Swarm^(Talk) 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) The user's been blocked now :) ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate addition of false information by User:Panasonic91

Resolved

Panasonic91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently added this to Resident Evil 5. I thought nothing of it until it was removed here by an anon, saying it was false info. Checking Panasonic91's contributions revealed they have been doing nothing but adding false information to articles, especially Clarenceville School District, since 2008. I'd say after a block for the same behavior and several warnings since then, an indefinite block is now in order.--Atlan (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's basically a vandalism-only account. Good on Celestra for reverting a lot of the stuff added, by the way. Orderinchaos 11:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Thanks for reporting this, and thank you to all who've been cleaning up. EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Linked IP vandalism

There has been a spate of vandalism from IPs 87.36.208.32, 87.36.208.40 and 87.36.208.83 all allocated to Dublin schools. IPs have been warned; an abuse report should probably be sent to the authority. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting IP rangeblock.

Resolved

 – Already done. Wknight94 ^talk 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP range: 87.41.17.xxx have been making disruptive edits on the article Enniscorthy. It is possible for an admin to block the range or protect the page? Minimac (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

These IPs are also assigned to Dublin schools, as in the above report. Please take some action to stop this vandalism. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Legal?) Threat

Not sure if this is the correct place (maybe WP:WQA instead?) but Trustwiki (talk · contribs) made a threat against me (I presume it was intended to be a legal threat? I'm not sure) on my talk. Again, not sure if this is the place or whatever, but thought I should give someone a headsup! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, exactly the right place. Indefinitely blocked for the legal threat (though she's already intended to take legal action, so there). –MuZemike 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

K so, good to know for the future. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

possible conflict of interest

The article on Ilario Pantano has, in recent months, been expanded and partially rewritten by User:Redhead Infidel. Passages added to the article are identical to passages on sites devoted to self promotion.

Over on the wikimedia commons User Redhead Infidel uploaded half a dozen images of Mr Pantano, from Mr Pantano's personal collection. And in OTRS messages seems to have confirmed that he is, in fact, Mr Pantano.

As I noted on Talk:Ilario Pantano#Repeated bits I know we have a {{coi}} tag. But I am not really familiar with the limits we ask the subjects of articles to set on themselves when they edit their own articles.

So I would appreciate advice, or more experienced eyes, on this article.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for the admins (at least not yet). Suggest you report it at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User Factsontheground using his talk page as a forum and to launch personal attacks.

Resolved

 – Talkpage already disabled, but unblock review pending. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User Factsontheground has been involved many times in many ANI cases during the last month. Today he was blocked for 24 hours for being incivil (toward me as well) and for engaging to edit wars. Now he use his talk page to launch PA against involved wikipedians and edit against WP:NOTALK [69]. It should be noticed that he's blocked and so unable to reply here-I left a notice on his talk page. Please stop it.--Gilisa (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I already disabled his talkpage for the remainder of his block. There's a pending unblock request, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I declined it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, Factsontheground is a woman, not a man. After being blocked today, she made a list of what she views as attacks against her. Are you saying you (and the other editors listed) didn't make those comments? That you're being misquoted? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On my defence:Malik, good to know it's she and not he, for some reason "he" is by far the default of many editors here (and gender is not to be refered from her user name). In any case how does your assertions relevant for the PA she lanuched on her talk page? In any case, I made no personal attacks on her-and it was discussed about week or two ago on another ANI Factsontheground was involved in (in this case, one she submitted agaisnt me). In any case, time and again she lanchued PA against me and others (even today[70], where she also remove my post and accused me for causing edit conflict on purpose). But as I wrote already, it's not relevant here and as I understand this discussion is already closed.--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And if I may, I believe SarekofVulcan has already revoked her talk page access. Well there you go. SGGH ^ping! 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked the history - WP:ROUGE looks pretty much on the money here. I'm not very good at tact, so perhaps someone who is could take some time to explain to the user that not everyone who pushes back against their POV does so on the basis of racism. It's water off a dick's back to me, and pales into insignificance compared with the vitriol I've had from some pro-Israeli editors in respect of supporting neutral content about Israel's occupation of Palestine, but it's not going to win her any friends and might well earn her the order of the boot. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr. and cn tag

Resolved

 – Wording changed to NPOV.

There is an ongoing edit war at the Joseph Smith, Jr. page. Given that he was the founder of Mormonism, that's not surprising. What's concerning me is the statement in the lead that declares him to be a "prophet". Even the Muhammad article carefully states in the lead that he is considered to be a prophet. Calling someone a prophet is an extraordinary claim, and I put a tag on it. It's getting reverted on the grounds that it's already been discussed on the talk page. Maybe it's a content dispute, but my question is, do they have the right to delete a cn tag on the grounds that the Mormons who are trying to own this page have "already discussed it"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The way it's worded right now "is the founder and prophet" of Mormonism seems OK, since he is the prophet of Mormonism -- it takes no point of view on whether his prophecy was valid or not. If you replaced "prophet" with "accountant", and Smith was the guy who took care of the books, that would also be accurate, but wouldn't say anything about whether his accountancy was good, bad, or indifferent. Mormons consider his a prophet, therefore he is the prophet of Mormonism, again, without regard to whether his prophecy was good, bad, or indifferent. If the statement had been something that made a claim about the accuracy or value of his prophecy, that would be different.

I'd be more concerned with the article calling him a "major political figure", I don't think that's accurate at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wikilinked prophet to Prophet, seer, and revelator which should hopefully clear up any ambiguity concerning the use of the word in this context. Shereth 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone's revised wording "considered to be a prophet by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement" seems factual and neutral to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That works, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Florian Homm and Dr. Florian Wilhelm Juergen Homm

These two articles, both created on March 20 by Purosbuenos (talk · contribs), both have the same content and are significant violations of WP:BLP due to contentious material and inadequacy of sources. But the reason for bringing this here rather than BLPN is that Florian Homm is marked as a Featured Article, even though it is only two days old. WTF???!!! (I will notify Purosbuenos.) Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the {{featured article}} template, which was clearly false. No comment on the rest of this. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's how it got there! -- thanks. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubbed back to a single sentence, for now. Needs to be rewritten with sources. Many passages were not just unsourced but also apparently highly POV and OR-ish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Range block / School block requested

It appears that all edits from 163.153.82.* and 163.153.83.* are vandalism. These addresses appear to belong to a new "internet filtering" service, used by several New York school districts. I have successfully requested semi protection of one of their vandalism targets, but as it appears to be one vandal rapidly jumping IP's, a school block on these IP ranges may be a better long term solution. WuhWuzDat 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Activity on 163.153.82.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for the past week:

• 163.153.83.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.83.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.83.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.83.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 163.153.82.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I notice Maglev (transport) has been semi-protected; might also work for other pages they frequent. Some of those IPs have been used more than once, dating back a month or so. I don't see a whole lot of activity on the range, but every recent edit I've examined has been vandalism. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pointless edit war

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

---

User:Wildhartlivie is [redacted] because I have added foreign-language sources on the Jodie Foster article. These sources actually concerne Ms Foster's skills in French and Italian (i.e. that she can speak French without accent and, not only understand Italian, but also speak the language a little), and I have been unable to find reliable English-language sources about these details. I don't want to waste my life arguing with this user, so it would be nice if he (she ?) could be restrained a bit. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Redacted your personal attack above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor has persistently added non-English sources without meeting the requirements outlined under the guideline Wikipedia:CITE#Non-English source that states Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate. I have posted this guideline to him and his response was to return it with no improvements to translation and a post to me saying "No. Couldn't find the same info in English (I've been looking for it), so the foreign-language sources are acceptable, especially since they come from reliable media.", which is not what the guideline says. Another of his edit summaries gave the most POV of commentary: "having heard speak in Italian, I'd say she has more than an understanding of the language." He has also violated WP:3RR by reverting and returning an inappropriately copyrighted video on YouTube. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said on the article talk page, I agree that the Youtube video is not suitable as Foster's ability to speak Italian is subjectively assessed by each individual watcher of the video (therefore no reliable source on her ability) however I interpret the policy on non-english (yet reliable) sources as stating that where no English source exists, the source is suitable (thus exercising the "though the latter are allowed where appropriate" part). I therefore propose a compromise where the video is lost but the "Elle" article is kept. SGGH ^ping! 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WHL, the editor is not "quoting" foreign language sources, which would need a translation; he is only citing them, which is acceptable. LadyofShalott 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And how does one ascertain that he isn't basically quoting, since the sources are in French and Italian? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are complaining about him using sources in French and Italian when you yourself don't even understand English? We are talking about literal representations of what she said. You know, the stuff that we put in quotation marks (notice the similarity of words) so it isn't plagiarism.

I checked the French and Italian sources for this edit. They say precisely what is needed.

From [71]: Parlant couramment français et sans accent, elle tient à faire elle-même les doublures de sa voix sur les versions françaises de ses films.

From [72]: La jeune comédienne continue ses études, intégrant le prestigieux Lycée Français de Los Angeles (et grâce auquel elle parle un français parfait, lui permettant d'assurer en français le doublage de chacun de ses films) et l'Université de Yale, pour lequel elle reçoit une maîtrise de littérature (Magna cum laude) en 1985.

From [73]: Dans une suite de l’hôtel Meurice, à Paris, où elle est venue assurer en ce début juillet son doublage en français, Jodie Foster nous reçoit.

From [74]: Durante l'intervista Jodie Foster non si è mai servita dell'interpreta, dimostrando una buona comprensione della lingua italina, che ha studiato fin da quando aveva 18 anni. In conclusione però Jodie dice di non sentirsi di parlare in italiano... troppe eccezioni...

Even your French and Italian should be good enough now to verify this, perhaps using a dictionary. Did you have any particular reason to assume bad faith or do you just like to occupy other people with such trivial stuff? Hans Adler 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"...when you yourself don't even understand English." Not exactly the most assuming of good faith comment I've ever seen... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was very angry. I don't like process wonks, and I especially dislike process wonks who misunderstand the process and turn that into a drama. But I removed my comment even before I saw your response. Hans Adler 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, I didn't. Striking it now. Hans Adler 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention pasting in what is not English without the benefit of translating it to English, considering the pasting adds nothing to understanding what it says. That's not helpful in the least and like Doc said, not exactly assuming good faith. That's the entire complaint, that it isn't translated. Big help, big slam, Hans Adler. Try helping. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really so stupid clueless or just pretending to be? Picking out the right sentence from a foreign language source is the hardest part. Once you have it, it's usually quite easy to guess what it means. Especially with Romance languages, which share a large part of their vocabulary with English. E.g. what would you guess what "français parfait" means? Yes, exactly: "perfect French". Wasn't so hard, was it? Hans Adler 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Um, how does this disagreement fall under the jurisdiction of the Admin noticeboard? Wikipedia has a number of contributors who are fluent in one or both of these languages, & can verify that the sources say what JJG claims they say. And being fluent in French & knowing a little Italian isn't derogatory information IMHO. I think WHL should let this issue go & devote her/his time to something else on Wikipedia which needs doing & leave the disputed content in. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And the same to you regarding good faith, llywrch. No one said in any way that fluency in any other language is derogatory, so why would you assume that? However copy and pasting content in French or Italian does not help clarify this. My French and Italian are not sufficient to translate this. The issue is that the editor is adding in sources that are not available in English to allow for verification. That's the crux of the issue, and btw, this is something that needs doing on Wikipedia, and I've contributed a lot on this article, [75] and it does concern me. As for what it is doing on this noticeboard, you'd have to ask Jean-Jacques Georges, since he's the one who brought it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• It was Jean-Jacques Georges who came here in despair because his perfectly good sources were rejected for no good reason at all. Hans Adler 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you continue to claim that your inability to read French and Italian is the problem, when your real problem is (1) process wonkery, assumptions of bad faith, article ownership, or some other irrational reason that makes it impossible for you to trust Jean-Jacques Georges, and (2) your inability to read English.

Let's look at what Wikipedia:CITE#Non-English sources really says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate.

In other words: If English sources don't bother to write about Jodie Foster's ability to speak French and Italian (and in fact even if they did they would be less reliable), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with using French and Italian sources for this claim.

[ ] If you understood that, please tick here and continue with the next sentence.

When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate.

This applies very obviously only when quoting. Quoting is when you take the original text, put it between quotation marks, and put the result in an article unchanged. Or sometimes you also translate literally. This is not what happened in the article, and therefore this sentence does not apply.

[ ] If you understood that, please tick here and continue with the next sentence.

OK, thanks. I am glad that you understood it now. Any remaining problems? Hans Adler 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I find your sarcastically condescending attitude to be a major problem. It's un-civil and uncollegial. If you can't be bothered to discuss things politely with people you consider to be your intellectual inferiors, then you probably should find some other place to hang your hat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. My reaction was uncivil and uncollegial and I shouldn't do that. Now that we agree about that, can we agree that Wildhartlivie's behaviour that led Jean-Jacques Georges to come here in despair was also uncivil and uncollegial? Hans Adler 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If I thought your response was a thoughtful and well-considered one, the result of some real introspection on your part, I might be inclined to respond to your inquiry, but I rather suspect that your purpose was basically to blow me off, and, rather than being an apology for your behavior, is in fact a continuation of the same superior attitude you seem to believe is your due – so I'm not inclined to answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Errrr. You just did. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. I responded to his comment, but did not answer his inquiry concerning Wildhartlivie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think he was referring to you when he made the request? And just in case you missed the point, a response is an answer, though for the effect you obviously wanted I'd have recommended not saying anything, that's just me though. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a tenner down the settee, I bet it's more useful than what you found though. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly so, since I have little use for smugness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of delivery it doesn't mean that his point isn't valid. Though may I ask, if you have no use for smugness, then why do you use it yourself? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Smug? Moi?!

I didn't say he doesn't have a point, I haven't actually looked into it, but as my Mom used to tell me, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. It's frequently possible to separate the content from the delivery, but in a case like this, the noise of his attitude has, for me, completely overwhelmed his signal. Hans Adler entered this conversation in an abusive and insulting fashion, and has only ramped up from there, so I'm just not interested in listening to what he has to say, a condition he created. Perhaps, if he's truly sorry about his behavior, he might want to rephrase and summarize his argument in a less antagonistic way, in which case I'd be happy to reply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Block review requested for Kurfurst

Moved from WP:AN#Block review requested (PBS (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)):

I've just indefblocked Kurfürst (talk · contribs) per this thread on my talk page - essentially he'd reverted another editor for no good reason. In itself this isn't blockable, but I believe it's the final straw in a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. This is Kurfürst's ninth or tenth block (some log entries were changes to existing blocks) and he's made a number of appearances here and at other noticeboards (here's the latest from last week). I fully expect more polemic along the same lines as the last time I blocked him ([76] [77] [78]), but I don't believe I'm involved and think it's time for them to move on. However, I'd very much welcome other opinions. EyeSerene^talk 13:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block Phew. That's a lot to read through. :) After looking through some previous noticeboards regarding his edits and his talk page history as well as spot-checking some of his contributions, I endorse the block. It doesn't look to me like you're involved, either; it seems like an effort to make you appear to be so in order to undermine you ability to take action. What you do seem to be is knowledgeable about the background, which is necessary in situations like this. There seems to be a pretty clear history of disruptive editing. Whether the indef block is the end of the process or the beginning, it seems appropriate. I think it's now to User:Kurfürst to decide if he can contribute without disruption and to the community to decide if its worth giving him that chance and (if so) under what circumstances. He does not seem to have been persuaded by past efforts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for your careful check and response. I was convinced I'd posted this at ANI (and just spent a few confused minutes trying to find it in the page history), so if anyone wants to move it please do :) EyeSerene^talk 15:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  Serves you right. You posted in the wrong place, and now you got a careful analysis. :) Hans Adler 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  But seriously, this looks awfully complicated. I am glad that I don't have to decide anything. Hans Adler 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who last year blocked User:Kurfürst, I am well aware of the lack of good faith between User:Kurfürst and User:Dapi89. I think that User:Kurfürst is a valuable member of the community despite his combative style. He has a POV that is different from most editors who edit in the areas that he does, and that helps our articles develop a more balanced presentation (NPOV). It is inevitable that an editor who challenges the POV of the majority of editors who watch a page will be involved in lengthy and protracted disputes if they wish to have their POV included in an article. It is unfortunate that User:Kurfürst does not use more diplomatic language, and I do think that when he makes personal attacks he should be pulled up for them.

In this case I think that consideration for the ongoing personal dispute between User:Kurfürst and User:Dapi89 has to be taken into account. Secondly before this block the longest block User:Kurfürst has had is one month back in October 2008. I suggest that it is changed to a one month block and once that block is served that for a further five months he is restricted from editing a list of specific pages and their talk pages -- such as the Battle of Britain -- where he has causing disruption. This list to be expanded as administrators see fit and to be placed on his talk page (or user page) in a prominent position. If he edits any page where he is restricted then he gets an indefinite block, and during this restricted period he would of course be expected to behave in a collegiate manner on any other page he edits. -- PBS (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, disputes caused by Kurfurst. Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See this thread for my analysis of the trouble that Kurfürst has stirred up. Note that while the longest block was one month, that was reduced from an initial indefinite block. I support an indefinite block since this editor has caused far too much trouble on this project to be given any more leeway. -- Atama頭 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons why it is called an indefinite block and not a permanent block. It is meant to be part of a process that allows an editor to adjust his or her behaviour to fit in with the group culture here on Wikiepdia. So what do you need to see for User:Kurfürst to be unblocked? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Philip Baird Shearer should ask the editors that have been insulted and abused by Kurfurst for the last 2+ years to comment here. You have not had to suffer Kurfurst. And I am not the only one who has been continually targeted by him. So I find your comments offensive. Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dapi89 is not the only editor who has been obliged to spend hours defending himself and his edits against Kurfurst's thorougly unpleasant and agressive attacks; time and again he has succeeded in completely disrupting articles with his "combative style" and totally non-NPOV. As PBS well knows, earlier this month Kurfurst accused another editor of being a sockpuppet; in spite of the editor being cleared KF continued with his accusations in an editorial summary Has Kurfurst apologised to User:And heg for continuing with this accusation? Has any other editor actually had an apology from Kurfurst for his use of "undiplomatic" language? I well know that editors can get overheated from time to time, and most will realise this, cool down and apologise; Kurfurst seems to be at his happiest and most condescending when he has nagged and chipped away at other editors to the point when they feel obliged to respond in kind. Surely experience over three years has shown that he will never feel feel obliged to cooperate with other editors, except on a superficial level, when absolutely forced to by administrative action? How many wet bus tickets are left? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem. After being indef. blocked before he has come back with vengeance. He hasn't changed a jot from the first moment he started here. Some editors really have learned nothing from their dealings with him. Why don't they spare a moment to think about the other editors who do cooperate, get on with, and generally are pleasant with one another? Trouble always starts with him, and we are tired of his relentless harassment. I can't understand why PBS is plugging for a reduction/unblock. Its just another slap in the face for decent editors. I find it astonishing that PBS acknowledges that "Kurfurst has a POV different from everybody else", and yet seems to think he is a "valuable member". Its stunning that he thinks Kurfurst contributes "a balanced" perspective. This is the definition of a trouble maker. Its shocking reading.I'm actually disgusted. Dapi89 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dapi89 please read WP:systemic bias. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. Using this to defend Kurfurst is absurd. Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Dapi's and Minorhistorian's posts illustrate the level of frustration caused by Kurfürst in editors who've worked with him; from what I've seen both are good content builders with a valuable contribution history and both work well in collaboration with others. The common denominator in these and a number of other content disputes seems to be Kurfürst. I accept that editors working from opposite POVs can be one way to achieve balance in an article, but don't believe that this is necessarily applicable here because I've seen no real issues with Dapi's editing, or that of others, that would require balancing in the first place. Kurfürst excels at creating controversy where there should be none. He has made some good edits when he sticks to factual data (such as technical specs of aircraft etc), so I understand the temptation to unblock - either to afford him one last chance to reform, or to permit him enough rope to hang himself and confirm any lingering doubts some may have. However, I question whether the overheads of managing his editing and further upsetting productive editors are worth it. EyeSerene^talk 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should get distracted lets stick to discussing the user:Kurfürst case. --PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was :) I apologise if I was being too circumspect. The tl;dr version: I don't accept that Kurfürst supplies something that we're lacking, I don't believe he is a net benefit to Wikipedia, and on the evidence of his repeated misbehaviour following previous blocks I don't see any point in unblocking him again. EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but I'd add that he tends to beat those of a different viewpoint by a variety of tricks (including selective quoting from a chosen RS, disparagement of other RS, and exhaustive re-editing to re-establish his viewpoint). Frankly I don't have the time to sort out the mess he regularly makes of previously stable articles. Technically he occasionally makes some valid points, but as a wiki editor he seems to learn nothing from his repeated blocks. Frankly I don't think he'll be missed, and that is a shame, as he does provide some valid critique once in a long while. But the process of working with or around him is so unpleasant that the small positives are vastly outweighed by the negatives. Greglocock (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how much nannying can be afforded to editors like Kurfurst; for every one valuable contribution he has made - and, to be fair, there have been a few - he has caused endless hours of needless, antagonistic, thoroughly frustrating "discussion" all for...what? What has actually been achieved by all of his blather?? All I see is an editor who has a consistent pattern of deliberately goading others, all because he seems to like nothing more than a good stoush. Maybe he thinks he is superior to the rest of us, maybe he has a big chip on his shoulder about the fact that Germany didn't win the Second World War; frankly I couldn't care less why he behaves like a spoiled, spiteful child. In the end all he has achieved is that he is heartily disliked by the majority of editors and several administrators who have been unfortunate enough to cross his path. He has been warned several times that any future behaviour of this nature would get him an indefinite block. How many "next times" do we have left? Minorhistorian (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- From reading the above it is not clear to me if those that have commented think that "indefinite block" means "permanent block". If they do then their understanding of this process is different from mine.

My understanding is that we block editors to give them time to reflect on their behaviour not to punish them. The problem with very long blocks for behavioural issues like this is that the editor blocked has little chance to learn how to adjust their behaviour. Although I do notice that after his previous long blocks it has been some time before user:Kurfürst was blocked again. Presumably because he did modify his behaviour. My suggestion of a ban on editing a list of articles is based on Arbcom practice for editorial behaviour over edit warring over Balkans related articles]] and similar Discretionary sanctions. If one accepts that approach then a block followed by a ban on editing, for a specific length of time, a list of articles (we can debate the length of the block, the length of the edit ban and the scope of the restriction (a list of specific articles or all of the articles in a category eg Category:World War II task force articles). If such a restriction was imposed on user:Kurfürst then during the time of the probationary period of the ban if user:Kurfürst was to wantonly edits one of the listed articles, or get blocked for similar behaviour that earned him the edit ban, then he gets blocked for a very long time possibly permanently. This would seem to me to give him time to learn how to edit cooperatively with other editors in areas where hopefully he will not engage in such passionate and tenacious editing. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean tendentious and tenacious. You are playing on words. The editors here don't need to be patronised. They mean permanent, as I think you well know. Your assessments of Kurfursts motives, his ability to work with others, and his agenda for being here is suspect. Fortunately, you appear to be the only one in favour of a reduction. I hope it stays that way.

Along with:

• User:Moonriddengirl
• User:Atama
• User:EyeSerene
• Me (of course)
• Minorhistorian
• Greglocock
• (and others who have not yet commented)

I hope Kurfurst remains blocked indefinitely (or permanently).

It is galling for this editor, blocked 11 times, twice indefinitely, to be given yet another chance. He has been forced to agree to work with others before. It has been abundantly clear, he can't and won't. Dapi89 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive user

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) can someone block him, he keeps reverting me and refuses to show how a russian documentary is an unreliable source. I already gave him a week.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Marina Orlova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  IP is wanting to add a weakly cited claim to some russian video clip in which Orlava's head is seen to be pasted on to another persons body that Orlova was a stripper and a pole dancer and has falsified all her qualification, extensive discussion can be viewed on the Orlova talkpage the IP has no support but keeps stuffing it in, he has also opened a thread at the BLPN here for his other weakly cited claim that she is a sex phone call thing worker, he has got also no support there, the article was unlocked yesterday by Beeblebrox, I have requested his assistance also tonight on his talkpage here. All resulting in BLP problems, Orlova is not presented as a Stripping pole dancer that has lied about her educational qualifications on any other reliable website so IMO she should not be here either. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a totally unfounded charge. This editor appears to object to the reversion of BLP-violating statements, which are based on original research and synthesis of copyrighted material. RolandR (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating your own critique of the show, which doesn't show how it is unreliable.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on you to demonstrate that your source is reliable, and to achieve consensus for inclusion of any disputed material. The article's talk page is the place for that. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that this user has a history of edit warring (see the history page for that), making personal attacks, and harassing users when they bring his/her behavior to their attention. If anyone should receive a block, it should be User:Sinistrial Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist

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

During the last few days editor Badmintonhist has been issuing all sorts of personal attacks and accusations about me (on article talk pages as well as my talk page), regarding a dispute he's been having with some anonymous editor. This is likely retaliation for him being reported for edit warring. Though I've requested that he either strike his comments or initiate a checkuser and SSP investigation (to vindicate me), he refuses and states that he "wants to maintain [his] unblemished record of never initiating an 'official' action" (thereby retaining his plausible ability to issue unsubstantiated attacks). The anonymous editor has responded with geolocation info, and we've both disavowed his attacks several times. Here are a few choice excerpts of his attacks in the past few days:

• I rest my case. Like I said, BLAX (This is, after all, Blaxthos's talk page) there are all sorts of pieces of work floating around Wikipedia and you happen to be one of them... KIDDO. (obvious insinuation that I'm a piece of shit, including condescending KIDDO and outright SSP accusation)
• You don't do the college kid routine very well. Your indelible personality comes through quite clearly. Work on it. (responding to the anon editor on my talk page as if I were he, again accusing me of SSP and general bad faith)
• If I had had any real doubts to start with, Kiddo, how many Anons engage in your level of fuss-budgetry?? ... There are all sorts of "pieces of work" floating around Wikipedia and you just happen to be one of them. (left on my talk page, attacking me in response to an anonymous editor stating that he is not me, includes the condescending KIDDO and "piece of [shit]" attack)
• Anonymous editor, indeed! (generic attack/insinuation of SSP again)
• seems like this could be form of sock puppetry to me (to an anonymous editor, generic accusation)
• Okay, Blax, I'll keep it in mind. (to an anonymous editor, accusing me)

I have invited and welcome any sort of RFCU or SSP investigation (can I initiate one on myself?). I have asked the editor to stop, strike, and (hopefully) apologize; instead he doubled down and made the accusation and rude comments at least three more times. I have had some disagreements with this editor in the past, but I've done nothing to deserve these sort of repeated attacks. The real shame here is that some other poor bastard(s) (the anonymous editor(s)) are also being attacked (and presumably discouraged from contributing) as well. Forgive me coming straight to ANI, but WQA generally doesn't seem to be equipped to stop this sort of harassment -- can someone please help stop these unwelcome (and false!) attacks, and hopefully make Badmintonhist understand that attacks are unacceptable? Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to sockpuppetry, you're innocent until proven guilty. He's the one that needs to start the SPI if he really does believe that that IP address was you. If not, you have nothing to worry about. —Soap— 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The attacks now continue even after notice of this thread was issued. Soap, my worry isn't that I'll get in trouble for something -- I am completely innocent. It should be noted that I'm not even involved in the discussion that started his accusations. The problem is the near-constant harassment and accusations -- am I to just allow baseless accusations against me (and others) and clear violations of several of our policies to continue unchecked? How long would you allow a belligerent and paranoid editor continue to attempt to sully your name/reputation before seeking redress? It's clear by his refusal to start an actual SSP/RFCU investigation that he is not making the accusation in good faith, but rather wants to continue to use it (as he has in the past) as a prop to try and discredit editors with whom he disagrees. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reposting the comments of the anonymous editor who is also being accused:

Blaxthos, I'm sorry to have filled your talk page up so much of me trying to defend myself against Badmintonhist. I have had issues before with accusations of sockpuppetry because my IP changes frequently (and I do not feel fully secure creating an account on this network) so I wanted to respond. I don't know if it is proper to make claims on the ANI thing if I am not the person filing the complaint or the one being filed against, but if you need me to, I can put in my 2 cents about his repeated accusations against me (although I think that most of that information can be found above in my posts on your talk page). Anyways, I'm sorry that you were somehow dragged into this whole dispute, but I am glad to see that it is being reported. Take it easy 129.133.142.139 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Badmintonhist has two choices: they either produce diffs and file an WP:RFCU or they drop the accusations. Sock-puppetry is a serious charge and not one to be thrown around lightly (see WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I believe most of us accept that editors can be mistaken and won't be penalised for genuine misunderstandings, but if no evidence is forthcoming, what might have been good-faith error starts to look like a bad-faith vendetta. This seems to me to be a content dispute that's become personal; perhaps an WP:RFC or other WP:DR measure might be useful in moving forward and taking the focus back where it belongs - on the content, not the contributors? EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:CHARTS

Resolved

 – ...at least, as far as ANI goes. Content dispute, no admin action required. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHARTS states: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart.". The article on Component charts lists component charts as:

1. Hot 100- This includes several charts to find the Hot 100.
2. Pop 100- now defunct
3. Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs
4. Hot Digital Songs
5. Dance and Country charts

Now, as I read it, if a song charted on the more prestigious charts, the lesser component charts are not to be used. Showing the same song charting on lesser charts, while also charting on the more relevant charge is redundant. In other words, only one Billboard chart should be used at a time. Pick the most important one and move on. In the article Shawty, I've attempted to remove other charts and leave just one, but User:Str8cash keeps reverting it. Rather than reading the passage I quoted above, he is looking at the example chart that shows format and claims that is the guideline. He then came to my talk page and "warned" me not to remove them, claiming that they aren't component charts. Either the article we have is completely wrong or Str8cash is, because 3 of the 4 listed in the article are listed as component charts.

He also wants to use a single reference listed at the top of the chart for all entries, which WP:CHARTS specifically says not to do: "Note that references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient." And keeps removing the fact tag for the New Zealand chart, which isn't mentioned by any source he has posted. Anyone want to opine on how the guideline should be interpreted? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Niteshift36 was reported by Str8cash on AIV for what I assume is something to do with the TLDR above. I suggested that the report go to WP:ANEW as it appears to be a content dispute rather than straight vandalism or anything requiring immediate admin intervention. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing will come of the AIV report. I haven't passed the 3RR by a long shot. It will be rejected. I have no intention of edit warring. I made my reverts, told him why. He disagrees, I came here to get other opinions. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a content dispute as it is a question of the style guide. I don't dispute that the information is correct. The dispute is that all of it shouldn't be there, per the style guide. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:Record charts is a pretty active discussion page occupied by editors that care about this topic and are accustomed to interpreting it in relation to different articles.—Kww(talk) 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a topic for AN/I, it belongs either in the above talk page Kww highlighted or at WT:MOS. Orderinchaos 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Spartan a compromised account?

Spartan (talk · contribs) has not edited for almost a month, and now, in the last two days, has made a series of what only can be considered suspect edits. Woogee (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm only an occasional editor. Just because I'm speaking Swedish doesn't mean I'm "compromised."Kevin (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was, threatened by him/her in Swedish, as best I can determine from Google translator:

I understand your concern, but your incorrect assessment of the North American Union based on your fake American feelings. As I pointed out, are you speaking English, which is unfortunate, but to facilitate your conversion to the Swedish language, I'll help you adapt to master the language. Anyway, there is no way that you know what you're talking about. The relationship with the robot must be confirmed only until you accept that your involvement in the Swedish business will not go unpunished. This is your only warning.

I'm not sure his edits last month were helpful, either.... At least one of them was repeated this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I speak enough Swedish to see that your contributions were nonsense. In my experience, most Swedes are capable of speaking excellent English, and I suggest you stop obfuscating, since this is, er, the English language Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as I believe it is compromised. The account has hardly been active for a year and then all of a sudden we get some extremely strange edits, not limited to the following;

• Here the account makes a talk page comment in a foreign language.
• and again.
• He reverted an edit which had previously reverted vandalism so therefore said that Godzilla was a real monster.

There's others as well, but that is sufficient to at least suspect the account is compromised. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a plausible interpretation. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the account is compromised. My experience with Spartan (talk · contribs) is limited to his assertions regarding the conspiracy theory aspects in the North American Union article. He made controversial claims regarding this 396 days ago, and again made similar claims today. When it comes to the North American Union, a noted "right-wing" "conspiracy theorist" on the topic is the media personality Alex Jones. In reviewing the edit history of the Alex Jones (radio host) article, I see that Spartan has added text regarding Jones' "new world order" conspiracy claims as far back as August 2007. While I do not agree with the way Spartan asserts his opinions, three years of editing the same POV on the same topic leaves me feeling quite sure that the account is not compromised. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you saying Godzilla isn't real? Then explain what happened to Tokyo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bishzilla.

"With a purposeful grimance and a terrible sound, she pulls the spitting WikiEgos down..." Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is reasonable that this is not a compromised account. Suggest unblock. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for an unblock. Even if the account isn't compromised, th recent edits suggest that he's going to be far from productive and he's caused quite a bit of disruption - he can stay blocked regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Phew For a moment I thought my account had been compromised. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:12056

• 12056 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What is this, some sort of malfunctioning bot, or slow-sneaky-vandalism-only-account? See for example [79]. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked that account indefinitely pending clarification. Crum375 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The account had been blocked before, for the same type of activity, but that time for inane amounts of requests to RFPP, requesting full protection of various templates, retired user talk pages, bot shutoff pages, bot code pages, etc. Seems a bit fishy. There is another ANI thread about the particular user, I'll pull it up in a sec... Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#R12056 for one, there is also 2 others, I'll see if I can find them. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#User:R12056 again - Which points back to an earlier one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#User:R12056 —DoRD (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the R12056 account (n.b., useless userlinks removed per comment below) is back to making random inane requests on RFPP again recently (see contribs). There probably needs to be some frank communication here about what is and is not acceptable use of automated tools. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you see, but I can't see anything. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The user was renamed from R12056 to 12056 today[80] so use the userlinks at the top. Oh, and someone forgot to notify them about this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the user was referring to the other account. Ah. We'll see. This is a strange case. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw last month plus the latest string of edits, I'm thinking this is a case of lack of competence. —DoRD (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent block of User:Keepscases

I do believe that the block of Keepscases may have been wrong. I strongly believe that this user is not a sock of TownDown. There was a user under the same name (Keepscases) on Commons that was blocked as a TownDown sock, but User:Keepscases on here has said (see his oppose vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingoomieiii) that he is not the same person on Commons that was blocked as a sock. Could a CheckUser or something be done for this one? I'm pretty sure this is not the same person. Furthermore, TownDown had only been on enwiki since 2009, while Keepscases has been around much longer, since 2007. I also think there is a pretty distinct behavioral difference between the two, as TownDown had specialized in graphics, and Keepcases as a WikiGnome/RfA participant. Not sure, but if you can prove me wrong, that I'll back down. Thanks for your time. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Keepscases blocked indefinitely. –xeno^talk 01:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I should have seen that. Thanks for the pointer. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Our Keepscases appears  Unrelated to the Meta one, per checkuser. I've already had a lengthy discussion with the Meta CUs and we're in agreement. He's now been unblocked - Alison ^❤ 03:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all.  :) Keepscases (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:IronDuke is editing/removing my Talk page comments

In this Talk page discussion re the appropriateness of a quote in the Nahum Shahaf article, I said: "(This quote) reads like the voice of a child musing at the sight of dark clouds blowing in. There is nothing concrete or valid here, it is an emotive and political trojan horse. It is not a statement reflecting the work of a physicist or an investigator." User:IronDuke, citing BLP-vios, removed these comments.diff

I appreciate BLP concerns, I gave this some consideration but I could not see any other way to present my thoughts on the appropriateness of the quote with regard to its tone/content, than to specifically describe/comment on it. Anyway I don't believe that commenting on the tone/content/appropriateness of a quote is a violation of BLP.

Anyway, Ironduke continued to revert both my initial comments and later references to my comments: diff diff diff

I objected and presented my reasoning here and after Ironduke's fourth removal of my comments I asked him to stop on his Talk page.

It is a pain to go back through history to locate, then copy and replace one's Talk Page comments in the midst of an active Talk page discussion. I hope an admin can take a look at this situation. Ironduke said he is done for the night, I hope tomorrow we don't resume the same unproductive cycle!

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Non-article space is the relevant policy section. BLP policy is somewhat relaxed on talk pages, and I do not think your comments were far enough out of line to merit being removed like that. At a glance it looks like there may be a personal element to this, as though the two of you have some history and don't particularly care for each other. I would add that technically this behavior is considered edit warring. The correct procedure when there is a BLP question, or any other type of intractable conflict, is to seek outside opinions. In this case WP:BLPN would probably would have be the proper forum. Further edit warring will lead to blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

IronDuke warned [81] for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt attention on the matter. I agree it may be personal, Ironduke has already "banned" me from his talk page. I realize I'm not the most tactful guy in the world, but I hope we can work together on the project. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please speedy delete Mt. Pleasant (film) ?

Resolved

 – It's been deleted. AniMate 07:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Pleasant (film) is a ridiculous hoax article that's being used as a continuing attack page for a bunch of high schoolers calling out their friends and enemies. Could somebody please delete it? Thanks. Woogee (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Daniel 8

I seem to be involved in some back and forth with an editor who doesn't seem willing to add citations to their inclusions, despite repeated requests to do so. He seems a lot more interested in name-calling than discussion or actually finding citations for his zany additions. Maybe the page could get semi-protected for a while until the other party calms down and sees a bit of reason? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than hand out edit-warring blocks just yet, I've protected the article for a few days. However, from the talk-page discussion I think you may be operating from a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH and consensus seems to be against you. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ihsanss86's extremely POV edits

Ihsanss86 (talk · contribs) keeps making offensively POV edits to Shams khel. They have a long Talk page with lots of warnings for a variety of offenses, I've tried to let them kinow why their edits are not acceptable, but they just keep reverting to their preferred version. Woogee (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User blocked by FPAS. I think this user should be banned from Wikipedia due to his disruption. Minimac (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whew. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Short 24 h block only, for now, as I'm still sort of giving him a newbie discount, but he can of course be blocked longer if he resumes like he did before. To Woogee: in future, please avoid letting yourself get drawn into reverting duels, even with blatantly disruptive editors like this one. It's generally better to report a disruptive editor to the admin boards earlier on and just wait a bit until they are dealt with, than to risk breaking 3RR oneself over such a matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll keep that in mind.  :) Time to go to bed, I'm getting tired. Woogee (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but somebody should look at the articles he has created. AniMate 07:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged... for now... --Taelus (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV has a backlog of a couple hours. Could an admin take a look, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and harassment

Resolved

 – User:B-Wuuu blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as a self-admitted sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken is a sock account of User:H Debussy-Jones and before that User:Ed Fitzgerald (who was blocked more than once for incivility). User:Beyond My Ken, for the past several months, has been routinely Wikihounding me. I assume this is in part as retaliation for my role in exposing his sockpuppetry, and in part because I am a fan of certain actors that he apparently worked with on a film which he seems to have some type of grudge against (his initial encounter with me consisted of him edit-warring to insert known inaccuracies into that particular article, like him trying to remove certain producers' names, etc.).
In full disclosure, I have not always edited under this account; admittedly I was found guilty of sockpuppetry myself, as I had other accounts that have now been blocked. I admit this, took some time off, and came back to get a fresh start with a new account. Per Wikipedia rules I have redirected my old accounts.
Anyway, before I edited as User:B-Wuuu, Beyond My Ken (then H Debussy-Jones, or "Sach") repeatedly stalked and hounded me, reverting edits with no given reason, warring, and opening investigation after investigation into me. Here, he opened a "COI" investigation in an attempt to prove that myself and others were inserting "propaganda" into articles. The admins rules against him. Disliking that result, he immediately tried to refile the investigation, in an attempt to get a different outcome, only to be unceremoniously shot down by the admins and basically told to knock it off. During this time, he also was reprimanded for an attempted outing against someone he thought was me, again demonstrating that he will go to any lengths to "get" me, for whatever reason.
Recently, after I started fresh with my new user account, Ken started up again: First, he tried to open an ANI ivestigation against me for opening a new account, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me. It didn't work; only one admin even bothered to weigh in, and they said that I appeared to be harmless so there was no reason to ban my current account. Of course, that didn't satisfy him, so now he's opened a useless sock investigation against me, which is a complete abuse of process because I have freely admitted that these other accounts were mine, and they are now permanently stale. In the meantime, he has continued an ongoing habit of stalking me; each time I edit a page, I can expect it to be almost immediately visited and edited by Ken, even if he's never been there before. He did this as H Debussy-Jones with my old accounts; now he's doing it again. For example, recent minor edits I mde on the pages Adam & Yves and Adam and Steve were quickly followed by visits and edits by Ken.
In short, this user has a deep-seated personal bias against me, and I'm asking for him to be formally prevented from hounding me, edit warring, or opening specious investigations against me any longer. I don't know how this guy has so much time on his hands, but frankly I have a job and a personal life and his harassment is taking up too much of my time. Thank you. B-Wuuu (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. For background, please see this sockpuppet report where 6 accounts were blocked, this sockpuppet report concerning me where my serial accounts were uncovered, this AN discussion concerning me in which I was allowed to contnue editing, this AN report concerning B-Wuuu filed by an editor who has been the subject of absue by one of the socks, and this sockpuppet complaint concerning B-Wuuu that I filed tonight. The Executive Summary: 6 accounts were blocked for disruptive socking, B-Wuu claims to be he person behind the accounts, and he created a new account to blatantly evade the blocks, something he doesn't deny.

B-Wuuu wants to be able to give himself a fresh start, without consulting the community, and apparently doesn't want anyone to scrutinize his edits either. The edits I made to two articles B-Wuu worked on simply fixed some formatting things[82],[83], no material was deleted, in one case I don't think I even touched his edit at all -- about the most innocuous kind of "Wikihounding" possible!

Really, the only question here is whether the community wants to allow B-Wuuu to continue editing, after a history of disruptive sockpuppetry and retaliatory behavior (such as this report). His attempt to frame this as a Wikihounding problem on my part is merely a deflection on his part, which I urge should not be encouraged by taking it seriously. If someone wants to contribute to fixing the current problem, the place to do it is here, at the SPI report. B-Wuuu has admitted to being a sockmasster and to evading multiple blocks, it merely remains to confirm his claim, and decide what to do about him. Most probably, if he is allowed to continue editing, he will eventually slip back into the disruptive patterns he followed before. I don't particularly see the value to the project of allowing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, just because you've slipped back into the destructive and hostile patterns you followed before with your previous names, doesn't mean I will. Some of us have other things to do. B-Wuuu (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you've just been blocked as a self-admitted sockmaster, I imagine you'll have other things to do now as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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