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

Ireland page moves

1. More than a week ago, several different polls were opened on Ireland (disambiguation), Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and another at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force. A veritable mess. The issue is a recurring one. Proponents wanted Republic of Ireland to be at Ireland (state) or a variation . Some of the proponents exhibit an Irish republican POV, which holds that Ireland being qualified by "Republic of" undermines its credibility as the only legitimate government in Ireland. Though support for the move was broader than this, it could therefore be taken into the orbit of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles.
2. Today, these polls were closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [congratulations for his bravery!] .
3. Later today, Srnec (talk · contribs) reverted the move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) (Ireland (island), which was salted by the new dab page Ireland )
4. Even later today, Matt Lewis (talk · contribs) copy-pasted Republic of Ireland into Ireland (state) (a redirect at that occasion), and vice-versa [1][2]
5. Polaron (talk · contribs) reverted the copy and paste move[3]

This could well be a big drama fest, but no heads have to roll just yet and no passions need be inflamed. To put it mildly, it is probably unlikely that review of this move close will lead to agreement that the moves had consensus, but in fairness the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force is more strongly in favour of the move than the article pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently working on this. Please lets wait for him to comment before adding yet more voices to the cacophony. Rockpocket 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's a separate thread open at AN. This needs exactly one cook to prevent broth spoilage. Oh, and "could well be a big drama fest" passed a long time ago. Essentially anything related to the word "Ireland" needs to be handled with care. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to be the brave person to decide whether AN or ANI is the right place for this and so unify discussion? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done it already. AN/I is really the appropriate place anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My response is User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response. No further comment at this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unable to comment at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response as the page is locked for IP's, but it strikes me that Tariqabjotu decision to keep his move is based on his opinion on the matter rather than consensus or the mountains of discussion that has taken place on the matter (much of which cited alternative reasons based on policy for keeping things as they were). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that it has a ring of making a faulty decision in good faith then justifying it retrospectively. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's based on the consensus that you all clearly can't decide. Hence, disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move Ireland -> Ireland (island), so you moved Ireland -> Ireland (island)? You are clearly operating on a wholly different level, Tariqabjotu. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with admin revert warring each other over a page move and then using protection powers to make their version stick. Whatever happened to Bold Revert Discuss? The admin closed and was bold in applying local consensus elsewhere onto a page, and was reverted. Shouldn't he then have engaged in discussion at the local where the dispute was? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Administrator Tariqabjotu's conduct is in good faith. He's done no wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when I say "then justifying it retrospectively" - I mean only that that kind of decision-making is fault prone. I don't meant any implication of bad faith on the part of Tariqabjotu, just one mistaken decision followed by a fault-prone one. Wheel warring is not pretty though. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in good faith I criticise the process he decided to use. I think applying local consensus to other locals is most definatly wrong GD. Even RM points you towards the talk page of an article for moves rather than gaining the consensus on the RM page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)

My move wasn't part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. It was based on an analysis of a move request discussion. Even with the evidence I missed initially, I am staying with my position, for reasons I explained in my response. The editor reverted the result of a move discussion – that's out of process. If (s)he disagrees with the discussion, this type of forum is the appropriate place to go. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for that move discussion at Talk:Ireland (state)... Srnec (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed as recently as September. The decision was to NOT MOVE the page. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no move discussion as I would view it, there was a small clique discussing this in a remote location. Can WP:F1 now conduct move requests on its talk page? Certainly consensus can be developed on those pages, but it must always go back to the talk page of the article in question to achieve consensus among all editors. By taking this behind doors, so to speak, we disenfranchise casual editors and IP editors who are unlikely to delve that many layers beyond the article talk page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a clique like a cabal, but with disparate people in it? I would be happy with that. It has taken a stern will to battle at times. I set up the WP:IDTF taskforce on Ireland (being WP:bold), and boy the diffs I could show of the same-face aggressive opposition to it! But sense survived the AfD, and sense will service this. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you simply cannot stop progress forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to stop progress, Matt. However, I do not view the method you used to be progress. I know it was an attempt to avoid the fight that have dogged the pages for years, but I don't think that small groups deciding consensus away from the pages is the answer. Especially when such a well thought out solution had been reached. You skipped a step that validates the decision you reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, would you be willing to expand a little on what you meant when you wrote, "Now, I'm done... you are welcome to open a WP:AN or WP:ANI post, but I'm sticking with this position regardless." Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste? Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste?" Yes, it might be interpreted as that. Either way, in my response, I addressed the mistake many people pointed out. I explained why I think, despite that, this is still the best solution. You all are trying to drag me into this debate; I'm not falling for it. This is your debate; I am just here to look at the evidence and decide whether a move is warranted. I did that, so my job is done. You are free to launch an appeal. You are free to continue to bicker about this -- but without me. I have stated my position -- and that's it. Me repeating my reasoning interminably is unproductive. You repeating yours interminably is unproductive.

"Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious?" Yes. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You say this is "our debate" and that we are trying to "drag you into it" but that you won't "fall for it" - yet your final decision was based on your opinion, not ours. Can you reconcile this contradiction?

(Incidentally, while not asking you for your opinion on it or on the issue itself, here was my contribution to this round of polling on the requested move, simply as an FYI. I think that there is more to policy on articles moves to consider than you give credit for in your response. Many of these were discussed in the pages and archives that you ignored.) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to acknowledge there are differing cases for each of the moves on your talk page. I'd suggest the solution is, at the very least, reverting Ireland (State) to Republic of Ireland and engaging for a local discussion on that page. Though as some people suggest this likely needs mediation or arbitration, I do think out of process move procedures do need to be reversed before such things can occur so as not to present a fait accompli. Though, I do hope that if a move procedure is begun on the talk page that a convincing consensus is reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a noninvolved party, I applaud Tariqabjotu for taking on an contentious issue and making a decision. No matter the decision, someone was going to be unhappy. Moving to a disambiguation, given the confusion that clearly exists, was only proper (if in doubt, disambiguate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That was only half the move though. As Tariq himself says, there was no need to disambiguate RoI. There are also the issues to do with the process which wa pretty obviously a bit unorthodox. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Appeal it and let it go to Arbcom, its bound to end up there anyway and the two factions will never reach agreement. It needs some objectivity. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or someone could file a RM on the RoI page and present a good argument, as been done elsewhere, and so acctually try to build consensus? It may end up at ArbCom if people continue to believe this assbackwards method of remote page moves is acctually valid, but lets give it a chance to acctually do it properly. Revert the move, put up a RM. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the state is Ireland, and I wanted primary use for the Ireland article to go to the sovereign state of Ireland, but unfortunately that did not happen. I strongly disagree with Narson. PurpleA (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Over what? You think this was a totally proper way to perform a move? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Compliments to Tariq for trying to sort this out. His solution must be the right one, becuase neither side is happy about it. IT looks like the best solution to me, removing either 'right' answer with one that gives access to the new reader to choose which 'Ireland' they are asking about. For the record, the 89.101 IP which is so abusive to Tariq (Above asking if he's stopped beating his wife yet) is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher. ThuranX (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot help replying to your remarks above. Many of the editors involved in this dispute are actually British, some like yourself are from Scotland. It would not be very civil of me to say that because you're from Scotland you are a POV-pusher. I think you should withdraw your last remarks. PurpleA (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "For the record, the 89.101 IP ... is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher." Thus? Gosh. Racism. Nice. At least you're good enough to put it on the record. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's try this: The IP who refuses to register is from Ireland, which explains why he's such a loud POV Pusher. How's that? I haven't associated you with one view or another, and your own agitation makes it plain you're pushing a POV. As for the Brits and Scots involved, they're all POV pushers as well, here for nationalistic, jingoistic reasons, and not arguing on logical principles, but for political and emotional ones, as are the Irish POV pushers. I further note that neither of you addressed the substance of my post, which is that since no one's happy, he did the right thing. I'll assume that's because you know I'm right. I'm also interested in why the IP wont' register. Sock? Banned User? Someone with a Real Life conflict of interests here? ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically we're all POV pushers. Looks like AGF went out the window. --Cameron* 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am very disappointed by these moves, especially as it was retrospectively justified. I saw quite a discussion going on on the what is now Ireland (island) article that was well and truly ignored. In my eyes, this was not a case of being bold, but rather an abuse of administrative powers, in an attempt to get this thing over with. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles have been moved and protected despite consensus tending toward keeping the status quo. Bearing this in mind, we now need neutral admins to help us move forward. We are at your mercy! :) Please help! --Cameron* 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

With every respect to the admin involved, and remaining concious that I do not want to stray from "comment on actions, not editor", I am also more than a little dismayed by the manner in which this change occurred. Per Cameron and TheChrisD, it looks to me like the admin (in good faith) only wandered in to one part of a complex discussion, failed to notice that the issue was WAY more complex than the simple "straw poll" he happened to read, and took premature action as a result. Per TheChrisD, these actions were then retro-actively justified. It seems to me that, in the course of making these changes:

• Due consideration was not given to the points raised in other areas of the discussion page (namely that the task force remit was to confirm a set of guidelines around "how to refer to the 2 Irelands within articles". And was NOT just about article names. As such, a move in the absence of a guideline change was premature)
• Not enough time was taken to familiarise himself/herself with the issues involved before acting (Admin appears to have arrived on the taskforce project page - after several weeks of absence from the project - took a look at just ONE discussion (in a page with 5 or more open discussions), and acting based on inferred "consensus". Where no consensus existed.)
• Not enough notice was given to the parties involved in the task force before making the changes. (In fact, I can see no notice of intent of any kind. The least I would have expected was a one liner that said: "OK, looks like CON to me, here's what I'm going to do...")

Beyond the issues involved in the manner in which the move itself occured, I have serious reservations about the result. The new naming scheme addresses one of the issues raised by the taskforce, but does not represent a complete solution in terms of COMMONNAME (parens suffix have no standing in common use), DAB (Ireland (state) is not a clear label), ease of use (every single derived link will need a pipe), etc. At the VERY least, the "Ireland (state)" article should be moved back to "Republic of Ireland". Until a more complete set of guidelines can be agreed around when/where/how to use and link. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Cannot agree to that alone. All articles must be moved back to what was the status quo only two days ago. My contention is that "Ireland" was a primary article. Only an article in that format could give the 9,000 years of history in Ireland, and it was universally accepted, contrary to what some editors have said, by almost all. Please return all the articles to what they were two days ago. Thank you. PurpleA (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot return all the articles because per WP:COMMONNAME "Ireland" must be a dab page, as for example "America" is. The closing Admin made what is a vital first step in making Ireland-related articles adhere to normal Wiki policies and conventions. The most damning example of the mess current and past editors have made in this area is that they have achieved a situation where the province of Northern Ireland is defined as a country on Wiki while the most common meaning of the word "Ireland" in modern usage, the country with the capital city Dublin, cannot be described as a country in its title article. This was an excellent, courageous and long-overdue application of WP:NPOV in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

btw, by my count this is now the tenth forum actively discussing this issue. It seems that the first thing anyone who thinks that there is forum-shopping going on does is to start the argument in a new place. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This 'multiple conversations in multiple locations' behavior is a serious problem. Centralized discussions help, fractured ones do not. By maintaining multiple conversations, the combatants in this, and other disagreements, effectively insulate themselves from outside adjudications. These conversations often start as Forks or forum shopping by a side which is currently losing. Because each side in turn loses ground, each side starts up the argument anew in new places, seeking more consensus for their side. They then justify their decision and consensus in whatever way they can - 'More people weighed in here, thus a bigger consensus', 'This group is specialized in this area and know it better than you', 'This was actually the right place to do this', 'this editor/admin has more authority to decide this', and so on. Each justification 'trumps' the other side in the combatants' minds. When an admin steps in they can point to the other discussions and say, you need to read this one, or that one, or many others, intimidating admins into not messing with it, or into reversing decisions. Each side can suddenly point to the other side for this effect as well: "You ignored these arguments we used on their fork to counter this idea or that one of yours..." and so it goes.

We had an admin come in on a large one of these fractured parts, evaluate it, and BOLDly solve it. He sliced the Gordian knot, halved the baby, and so on. Now the sword he swung is being hoist high over his head. The simple fact is that years of dancing and dodging on this are over, and both sides are angry they didn't get their way, and that the fight is over. These are two separate issues, and both need to be mentioned here. One, Neither side got its way. The article Ireland is now a disambig, not about the Island nor the Political entity, and both sides are incensed that their article didn't get the coveted place. Second,both sides see this argument as an extension of their political leanings, and to have this forum for their grievances removed feels like a personal insult to them. This, they need to man up, hold their sack, and get over (Women too). Tariqabjuto did something truly impressive here, and the community and admins should be backing him. Again I appluad his work here ,and hope for more of the same. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. My original position here was that Ireland meant, first and foremost, my country (aka RoI). After years of futile polls and argument I came to appreciate that there must be a compromise position. While I would still maintain the the average reader means the the sovereign country of Ireland when they search or use the term "Ireland" I have nonetheless come to realise that there will never be consensus around that solution:

• (1) Because Unionists in NI and people in Britain feel that calling the State simply "Ireland" implies that NI isn't on the island of Ireland in some sense or that it represents a nationalist claim on NI
• (2) Because nationalist Irish editors feel that applying the term to the 26 county sovereign state excludes nationalists from six counties from being as "Irish" as someone from Kerry and/or that it surrenders the idea of a politically United Ireland.

The victim in all of this is (a) WP:COMMONNAME, because "Ireland" is the near universally used and recognised term for the Southern state and (b) WP:NPOV because this fact is ignored or set aside for purely political reasons. (And also, some editors who have fought this move for 8 years have a vast amount of personal emotion wrapped up in maintaining the POV versions of the articles).

In the light of all this Ireland as a dab is, frankly, the only solution, though it is painful to both sides as the various arguments show. After this, much follow-up work is required, with doubtless much more debate. But, for now, the boil has finally been lanced; a prerequisite for healing to start. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when did we get invaded by stereotypes? Could it not be that you oppose use of RoI because...you are Sarah and you, as an individual, chose to oppose it having made a decision based on your view of policy and guidelines? There are plenty of Brits on what is supposed to be the 'nationalist' side and Irish on the 'Unionist' side that perhaps we might have to accept we arn't dealing with stereotypes but fellow editors who are perfectly capable of coming to a rationale opinion based on policy and that we don't need admin to cut the 'Gordian knot' of consensus. I admire the taskforce for what they were doing, I just regret they let their patience fail at the last moment in welcoming this fait accompli --Narson ~ Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were part of the taskforce Narson- I've never seen you comment so much since over the last day! I do thing you are making too big a drama out of this, when so seldom dipping into it before. the admin merely made a per-policy decision anyone could have done - and nobody was 'robbed' of an ROI poll. Many 'opposers' to change were admitting that keeping the name 'Republic of Ireland' wasn't really the central issue - and we were all focusing on Ireland, where the real problem was. I know you've had half an eye on things - but I wonder if you know how much has been covered? I'm happy with what I see as a natural progression here, even if it wasn't the route I expected. The "Mixed Ireland" status-quo bunch have had their chance to progress their own often-hidden preferences (and some of them did have them), and believe me, they stonewalled and they block-voted to breaking point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I retort that you arn't making a big enough drama out of it? :) TBH last I saw of the taskforce it had stagnated. The RoI/Ireland (State) page remained on my watchlist from...god knows when I last contributed there. I am amazed at what you guys managed to achieve and hell, as I've said, the /result/ is likely what I would want. However the process? Meh. This was a cock up. and I realise it is no-one fault really. A mistake was made. However, the actions after that mistake are just trying to perpetuate the cock up. There needs to be a solution that is /just/. For something to be just, process must be followed. Then the issue can be buried. Until then, you just leave an open wound, for lack of a better term. I truly admire what you have achieved in forging a compromise with Sarah and how much she has worked to compromise with you. It is just in the haste to act a lot of the good in that process was negated. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd

Two big points:

1. There was no need to change the status quo. The Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland/Ireland compromise matched our other treatments of geographic areas with multiple governments (i.e., People's Republic of China/Republic of China/China/Taiwan). You're never going to make everybody happy with stuff like this, but it was a stable and accepted solution by the vast majority of the community.
2. The debate took place in a small corner of the projectspace, with little input from the community at large. This may perhaps be the most obscure corner of the encyclopedia to hold a discussion on a move as major as this. Re-arranging our Ireland article names forces the renaming of the entire categorization structure (a long and tedious process in and of itself) and the renaming of hundreds of subsidiary articles, as well as dozens of templates related to European and European Union topics. This is a huge huge debate. Rather than being held in the article talkpage (where it had been shot down back in September), it was shuffled off to a distant hidden corner of the WikiProject Ireland project space. When the discussion took place there, it became a hivemind scenario. While I have no doubt as to the good faith of many of the editors, Tariqabjotu included, this is unreasonable and unfair to the community. While I certainly sympathize with the need to provide for an orderly debate, this was a bit overboard and ultimately (and unintentionally) disenfranchising.

Therefore I urge the reversal of the moves and the opening of a new straw poll, advertised throughout the community noticeboards, in which this debate can be carried out fairly and equitably.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On point two sir, I doff my cap. You put my point eloquently. It is the process that appears to have gone awry here, despite I am sure good intentions. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For an American administrator to write all that, clearly without researching anything!! I don't like the emotive language, and talk of "hivemind" either. I have not been part on an 'obscure corner' of anything thank you very much. Read WP:IDTF and do not risk offending decent people who have given their spare time to work for a better encyclopedia. I've spoken to several admin now who have voiced regret with the status who (from top dogs to lesser known ones), but who have said it is too difficult/dramatic/unapealling/etc/etc for them to try themselves to change so is best kept/worked on if possible. The 2-state forking issue simply grew out of hand in the end. I'm not having all the hard work, the article locks, endless debate and dramas etc 'glossed over' by an ingnorant bold-text intrusion like this. Really - I mean it. People have done nothing but work - and people on all sides accepted there should be some kind of change in the end. Thousands of messed-up meanings of Ireland in articles have now been put right. Ireland was never my own argument originally, but it stopped me from editing Wikpedia, and I am kind enough to do as much of the tidying-up work as I can. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is starting to get a bit own-ish Matt. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so pedantic - I'm simply speaking my mind. We all share Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We do all share one which is why the impression you are giving of ownership seems so bizzare. And certainly edits like this don't make it very easy to work with you. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it neither as an American nor as an administrator. I have nothing but good faith that you've been working hard towards solving this dispute, I merely take issue with the manner in which you carried it out. This discussion has widespread effects and implications and should not be left to a workgroup to hammer out in isolation. If you are confident that your conclusions as to what should happen with the Ireland articles are valid, then they should be subjected to the community as a whole for approval. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a bit better after reading that, but I think the community thing can be a bit of an ideal, or even a myth. The RM at Ireland advertised on the main Countries wikiproject, and all the country articles and wikiprojects involved, including the UK article and project. The admin who polled it went to an admin page requesting neutral help before-hand - none came (people run a mile, we've tried before). What do you suggest? I personally suggested Arbcom to look over it, but it didn't happen - as people were just tired of the debates and the stonewalling, and it could have meant a labourious and tedious re-start - so the taksforce broke its 'bond' under the stress, and a 'half approach' RM was placed at Ireland instead. This (island/state) approach Tariqabjatu has moved on was recently straw-polled at the well-advertised WP:IDTF taskforce to a broadly 50/50 result (it possibly had the edge, and at least one who would have gone for it held their vote). Yes it would have been great to get an even wider audience than the few new people that poll pulled in - but this is Wikipedia, and sometimes it's a smaller room than people admit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to point one by Hemlock Martinis: Clearly there was a need, as evidenced by the ridiculous amount of discussion on this matter. If that's not call for a serious action on this matter, then there will never be, and we are condemned to a permanent war here about which Ireland we can call Ireland. Irony. Instead, we can all accept that no side won this war, and move on. Irony again. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Every step is a step towards stability.. I really believe that, and it;s kept me sane too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, to rephrase that, a small group of editors who are willing to keep complaining and never shut up will always get their way? Even when it results in the absurdities I point out below? I don't think that's how we do things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a small number. It's an ongoing problem. Consensus can be revisited. Edit warring is bad. And on and on and on. There are plenty of good reasons to change to what we have now, and plenty of problems, fights, arguments and attacks on what we had. I don't understand why peace is so hard for Ireland. In all forms. ThuranX (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You should get your facts right Hemlock. It was not shuffled off to an obscure place, the discussion was notified. The discussion has gone on from a long time and the subject had been new, then on several occasions Ireland (state) would have replaced Republic of Ireland. Consensus was used to prevent change not to reach agreement. Republic of Ireland is incorrect for reasons previously outlined. If you don't know the politics then you need to research it a bit more. To suggest that a small number of editors are complaining (angus) and this is the only reason for the change is a nonsense. There are several small groups of complaining editors on both sides, including several who are throwing their rattles out of their prams here. There have also been a large number of editors who work on other sites than Ireland with some knowledge of history who are disturbed by the perpetuation of language which is now longer used and was specifically excluded by the Good Friday Agreement. What this needs is not the sort of "we find this inconvenient" and inaccurate position you adopted above, but a few serious admins to actually look at the facts and reach a conclusion which can be enforced. That means researching the facts before commenting by the way. --Snowded TALK 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to change the status quo. I very much concur with Hemlock Martinis on this one. Much of the argument of those favouring Tariqabjotu's moves is based on the assumption that the presence of talk page discussion, controversy, a taskforce, and continuous polling pointed to the necessity of a move. It didn't not. It merely showed, as Angus pointed out already, that a minority of editors did not like the status quo. That's fine, and they have every right to challenge it through the appropriate channels. The problem with making moves based on the taskforce was that some of us (i.e. me) did not participate there because we believed (apparently falsely) that it would not have any direct effect on page locations: that, we thought, would be decided, per usual, by move proposals launched at the articles' talk pages and announced at WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words you avoided all discussion, and simply kept your block vote in a drawer. This cynicism is exactly what has been avoided. You had a chance to help forge the change, but you wouldn't play. And your use of "we" speaks volumes in my eyes - I've got very close to this, and I've known well the score.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the taskforce had come forward with a consensus proposal... who knows? Maybe I'd have supported it. You have no idea what cynicism is. By using "we" I include other editors who feel as I do. We both know who they are. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The notifaction was pretty weak too, at least on the former RoI page. There was a move proposal in...August? September?....and then a message two days before the move. 2 days? Really? THat is an appropiate tme for such a controversial move? --Narson ~ Talk • 07:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that Jim ...

Regardless of whether the move was correctly closed or not, and I say not, the current situation is entirely unacceptable. There are now > 25000 links (mainspace only) to a disambiguation page. The status quo is positively harmful. Perhaps some uninvolved administrator could remove the need for these 25000+ pointless edits and just put Ireland (island) back to Ireland? Thanks Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If proof were needed that this is not even wrong, here are the page view stats from October:

• Ireland (disambiguation) 1455 views, unranked
• Republic of Ireland 131156 views, ranked 1877
• Ireland 302792 views, ranked 467.

So, instead of having the primary name for the most viewed article, and one of the 500 most viewed in October, we have a disambiguation page there that nobody ever read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more proof as to why the decision above was ill-conceived. We should revert it back to before the moves and continue the discussion from there. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Read bold below: --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe they should probably be moved back now. Angus' arguments are strong, plus it's quite obvious that such a drastic change needs more legitimacy and credibility to stick. If the community actually does want these changes - and various users have to do lots of work to reorganize everything if this is the case - then there is nothing wrong with "confirming" this, and if it doesn't, then we should see that too. This should probably happen quite soon now, as time has already cleared the issues up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Angus has a huge stake in this - please don't fall for what he is trying to do (ie make Ireland (island) a second country page again - it would be a disaster). --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from tariqabjotu's Talk re Angus' bot suggestion:

In no way have a bot change all the Ireland links into Ireland (island) - the majority of Ireland links refer to the country, NOT the island (and this can be proven). This fact is one of the main arguments for changing the status quo: Ireland (per common-name usage) has been habitually used instead of Republic of Ireland to mean the contemporary or the historical Irish state. A bot sending them all to the new island article is an absolute nightmare scenario! The idea with the approach Tariqabjotu moved on is that they all now sensibly go to the new Ireland disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously - we have a workable situation now, and you all could ruin it by doing this crazy 'bot' move. I don't even want to think about the consequences of it, but it will all start all over again (probably trying to make Ireland the main country article). We CANNOT have two state articles, and this move will instantly make Ireland (island) one again (as it was as Ireland), and the last 2 days editing work will start to reversed in an way I don't even want to think about. We MUST acknowledge why people wanted this change!!!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We had a workable situation before. If you had a problem with content at Ireland you should have just edited it. Most people didn't want this change. Srnec (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"We MUST acknowledge why people wanted this change!!!!" Lets acknowledge it then. A small group of persistent POV pushers have been trying for a long time to get Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland, and the island article moved elsewhere because they object to the term ROI because it was created by the British. The move request at ROI failed multiple times, meaning they had to come up with another solution to remove the primacy of the island article. No doubt in a few months we will see a request to get Ireland (state) moved over to Ireland now that the island article has moved. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A significant group of editors objected to the use of the term ROI for a range of reasons including the fact that the two governments concerned had agreed to no longer use it. At various times there has been a majority in favour of the change, but a minority used 'consensus' to prevent change. Some of that group wanted to use Ireland (to confirm with other wiki use) but in various debates agreed to compromise to Ireland (state). Of course it is very easy to see the mote in someone else's eye while not seeing the log in your own. --Snowded TALK 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could be bothered to look at the taskforce where most of us 'opened up' to a degree, nearly all af us agreed that 'ROI' was a red herring (though some don't like it, and some like me are neutral, nobody loves it) - deep down this was always about Ireland the island, and the complex ways people see it. And having two forking (time sharing, even) 'country' articles HAD to stop. And for many, it was about the disambiguation mess surrounding it all - though some are happy with that side effect of course. You have had a clear stake in this in the past, number57 - and your accusations of others you are repeating verbatim are simply open to yourself. You are behind the times, and are fighting an old war here - Ireland the island is widely known to be the central issue now, and you can't kid anyone with the creeky "small group of persistent POV pushers" line any more.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"You have had a clear stake in this in the past" - I wouldn't say that commenting on a couple of debates since the nonsense at Flag of the Republic of Ireland in mid/late October and !voting on one of the many past RMs back in August - is a clear stake in the past, especially when compared to the fact that some of the editors have been involved in move requests dating back to early 2007 or even 2006. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages moved back

 Administrator note I took the bold liberty of returning the pages back to their stable locations, as enough time for deliberation has passed considering the nature of the affair. Administrator opinion as expressed is that the moves didn't have consensus, and its effects are disruptive. As RfCs etc are proceeding, and as tens of thousands of links are currently misplaced, further discussion and firm consensus for future moves should take place from the status quo ante. PS, I left the redirects to the bot, but if there is anything else now wonky because of the moves that I can fix, please let me know. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first to object to your bold liberty. Evidently it is time to take this to Arbcom. -- Evertype·✆ 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work - sanity has returned (at least temporarily). Lets hope this doesn't turn into a wheel war like Burma/Myanmar did though... пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Straight to arbcom? A move could be undertaken locally on the pages to move them, in the proper fashion, to this proposed set of names. Or on one of the pages providing notification is posted on the other pages making it clear what is going on. It was last tried in september? Might be worth having annother go, see where consensus is. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson. Let's not get over excited and go to ArbCom! How about trying an RM first? --Cameron* 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to recuse having commented on the request, but I would think the arbitrators would be unlikely to take this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? Is that just a last desperate attempt to move them or what? Leave them as it is, there was little or no consensus to move in the first place, and moving was disruptive. Djegan (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you could do Deacon is see the section below on Matt's innappropriate refactoring of Talk:Ireland (now Talk:Ireland (disambiguation). If anybody is to have a chance at understanding the events of the last couple of days, especially in light of this latest move, that page needs to be restored to its correct timeline, and I don't want a block for doing so. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Self strike, no longer relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What Deacon has done while this "unifying" debate was in progress is simple vandalism. The "Admins" cited in this thread as "justification" have (bar Hemlock) been deeply involved on the side of maintaining the version that is counter to WP:COMMOMNAME, have voted in the polls - to cite their POV as "neutral is bizarre. (As is the notion that Deacon is neutral). Now the same crew who have imposed a pov-ridden set of "solutions" on Ireland article titles are citing the fact that they supressed all attempts to fix the problem as a reason to maintain the pov! (The links issue). This cannot stand. Ireland, like America, is and must be a dab page. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon's action was an exercise in thumbing one's nose at the community, and the ARBCom proceeding should carefully consider whether or not his should lose his buttons for his admin wheel warring behaviors. We had a stable solution in which neither side got their way, neither side was happy, but in which all parties know, like it or not ,that readers will find their way to the right article for each reader. Now we're back to agenda pushing POV debates and demands. Wonderful, we can start all over again. ThuranX (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is a request for the Deacon to please name the 3 uninvolved admins he says agreed to reverse the move. I note that to date, he has not done so. From where I'm looking, this is another example of admin abuse, plain and simple, by an involved admin/editor. To use the Deacon's own logic, there was no consensus to move the articles back to their original controversial pages either! For example, take a look at the reaction and clear consensus to overturn a page move involving the abusive move "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of the Republic of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Deacon moving the articles back to the status quo of three days ago. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed further in a rational manner. Ireland is a primary topic, and should never be a disambiguation page. PurpleA (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am an uninvolved admin, and I agree with Deacon's bold actions. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The admin involved indicates he doesn't care about the articles being moved back....and I note when tariq was bold he was praised, especially by you Thuran. Perhaps we should extend the same good faith to both admin? There is an arbcom application in and then if that fails I imagine a fresh RM will begin. There is no need to call for blood. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the admin involved you are referring to is Deacon, then I find it a stretch that he claims he doesn't care about the pages, and yet he's registered his !vote against the initial move. --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean Tariq. He says he doesn't care that his move was reverted. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson, there's a difference between Boldness and wheel warring, and you know it. apples and oranges don't stuff that strawman well. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still waiting...probably taking you a while to count all those admins up I suppose... --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration requested

For the record, Everytype has intiated an arbitration request. See here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion that needs to be speedily closed

As indicated by multiple editors in this discussion, please note that deletion "is not (my italics) a legal option" as the nominator merged some of that article's content that other editors other than the nominator had originally written prior to the nomination (see [4] and [5] for the merge of content written by myself and others and here for the GFDL regarding such merges}. Thus, technically, because the discussion can only legally close as "keep," "merge", "redirect", or "no consensus", i.e. anything other than "delete", it should be speedily closed without prejudice for a talk page discussion on the merits of the merge done by the nominator a few weeks back. I did ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination prior to posting here, but was rebuffed as seen here, which seems to suggest that the purpose of the nomination is to have some kind of forced redirect, while in that edit he indicates he is not opposed to a redirect with the edit history kept. It doesn't seem right to thus start a deletion discussion if the article cannot be legally deleted when the nominator had merged the content a few weeks prior and in effect is not really after deletion anyway. If it was called "articles for confirming merges and redirects" okay, but it is not. I am also somewhat concerned that the merge did not acknowledge the page it was clearly merged from something an admin had also cautioned the user about as seen here. In any event, I am not requesting any action against the nominator, but as the discussion cannot end in "delete" there is no purpose for the discussion to continue in under the auspices of an articles for deletion discussion. Incidentally, the two main characters of Tyris and Ax are actually reasonably notable (obviously not on par with Mario and Sonic, but recognizable to pretty much anybody familiar with video games) and covered in numerous reliable sources in multiple languages around the world (see for example, this and this) as well as in various magazines that I have seen without necessarily having online archives. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any article can be deleted at AfD if those at AfD make a consensus for it. There's no such thing as an article that must legally (lol) be kept or merged as far as I know. I know admins sometimes do a 'history merge' of some articles, but I don't think that's often necessary. If he says where he merged the info from in the edit summary (if that's really the case) that's usually all that's needed. Sticky Parkin 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he doesn't say in the edit summary, but given that "merge" edit coincided with this redirect, it is obvious where it was merged from; however, if the other edit, i.e. the redirect is also deleted, then that would not be clear. Moreover, based on the comment on his talk page, he seems really after the merge and redirect and hopes that a deletion discussion, which is not what AfDs are for, will somehow be a means of bypassing a proper talk page merge discussion. And per the GFDL, we have to keep the contribution histories in tact as I have seen argued many times. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think A Nobody's point is that since the nominator merged some of the information already, the proper (as per guidelines) outcome would be a merge and not a delete so the edit history won't be lost. "Legal" was an unfortunate choice of words. I don't know if this is true or not as I haven't looked into it, and I'm not sure ANI is the place for this discussion, but maybe someone with the appropriate expertise can offer an opinion on whether the edit history should be kept (effectively resulting in a merge) if the nominator of an AfD has merged parts of the article without merging the edit history? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section of the GFDL license is "In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements." So a full history merge would be required. RMHED (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was quoting someone from the discussion. I cut a finger on my right hand pretty good (I'm right handed) and so my typing and all is a bit off tonight. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's correct that the article history mustn't be deleted, the deletion discussion about having an article of that topic is still a valid and at the right place. A history merge is not recommendable in this particular case since the page histories overlap, WP:HISTMERGE recommends moving it into a subpage into Talk space. --Amalthea 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article's history can't be deleted as a result of the merge, then Articles for Deletion really isn't the right venue. A discussion should have taken place on the article's talk page to build consensus for the merge and redirect. Or it needs to be made clear that the only acceptable/appropriate closes of the discussion in question are "keep," "no consensus," or "merge and redirect." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible result is still to remove it from article space, as I said above, and AfD is the proper place to discuss that. I personally agree that a redirect is the "worst" outcome in this discussion, but it doesn't call for a procedural speedy closure. Cheers, Amalthea 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wouldn't ignoring the rules make sense in this case? It's very understandable to assert that this is Articles for deletion and not Articles for discussion, and I would certainly agree, but to bring a lot of users in the wrong (i.e. those straight siding for deletion) because what in my opinion is nothing more than a technicality seem to accomplish little besides getting in the way of maintaining the encyclopedia; a speedy close and proposed move of the discussion would accomplish just that. MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IAR applies to community-created policies. It's not an valid argument to ignore the site license.--chaser - t 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an "articles for discussion"? Also, the two main characters Ax and Tyris are mentioned in international newspaper and magazine reviews, previews, etc. of the games they appear in and in some of these reviews at decent length. These reviews, previews, etc. verify much of the information in the article, which means significant coverage in reliable secondary or third-party sources and thus unoriginal research. See, for example, David Choquet, "Golden Axe," 1000 Game Heroes (Taschen, 2002), 331-334. I do see and agree that the article should have better citations, but a quick glance on Google News and in some of my video game magazines shows that the characters are integral parts of the series and do receive enough out of universe coverage to justify their coverage. With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge and redirect that maintains the edit history so that editors can use the vast multitude of sources available to improve the content when they have the sources to work from rather than having to start over, but in any event, my concern is that content I and others had been working on was merged unilaterally a few weeks back by the nominator to another article without attributing it to us in the edit summary followed by a challenge of the redirect by IPs (see here), and then instead of discussing the validity of the redirects on a talk page just nominated the article with our contributions for deletion thereby making it (if deleted) so that those of who actually wrote that content would not be acknowledged. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered where this new meme had come from. As far as I can tell, this standard has not been applied in the past on any wide scale - it only gets a single line in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which then points to an essay for clarification. If this is going to be used extensively (and frankly I'd bet my house that it'll be used in every fictional-content AfD from now until Armageddon now) then it really needs to be made clearer on the policy page exactly what outcomes are acceptable for AfDs. If we're now saying that a conclusion of "delete because all material has been merged" now explicitly requires a history merge in all cases it should be made clear - I'd rather that than have hundreds of protected redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please clarify which meme, single line, and essay you mean? I have an interest in the general discussion, but I'm unclear on this specific thread. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The meme is "deletion of articles which have been merged is illegal", the single line is "Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause GFDL problems if attribution for contributed content is lost in the process. The essay merge and delete discusses this" in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging, and the essay is WP:MAD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I don't get what is so hard about indicating where the content was merged from as I indicate as much when I merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have used the word legal. After reading this discussion, I suggest moving the page to a talk subpage for merging to retain attribution. That allows for both deletion of this specific page and retention of the edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, they did apparently also make a toy of the character as well. Moreover, because the characters appear in multiple games, this article serves as a sort of gateway to those other articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, whereto now, or the psychosomatic mafia

Within just a few days, several things happened to make me conclude that Wikipedia has dropped down the ladder of humanity the last final steps. I always knew that it would eventually happen, but didn't expect it to go so fast. Maybe I am just fortunate to be in a section that is at the frontier, but from what I have seen certainly not by much, so keep reading: this concerns you, too; if not today, then tomorrow.

When I temporarily returned to editing about a week ago, on the specific request of a number of good users, I found the articles I was interested in, in a more sorry state than ever before. They were full of own research and synthesis of editors, false attribution to sources, heavy weight attached to fringe theories and outlier research, etcetera, and with all kinds of quality research and sources that we had collectively gathered the year before removed.

I started to improve the texts, by dealing with the issues one by one. A few other users helped. Then, a number of things happened in quick succession.

1. Every single one of our edits, some two dozen in total, got reverted, without explanation.
2. The two users responsible for the reverts refused to discuss their actions.
3. When I protested against their massive reverting, my protest was called frivolous and it was forbidden to me to protest again.
4. From then on, our edits - mostly different ones, the articles grew new issues faster than we could keep up with - got removed every day, and every day I saw the articles transformed further.
5. When I attempted to initiate dispute resolution on one of the talk pages, my comments were modified. When I protested against this, all - mind, you: all admins, and there were many that got themselves involved, declared that it was alright for people to modify my comments if they didn't agree with them, as often as they wished, while my restoring them was blatant editwarring. The regular expert on the vandalism policy talk page said different, but he got ignored.

This is not about me though, I couldn't care less if it was not for the following. It merely illustrates how things work now, and I am far from the only user with such experiences.

The real issue is this.

A year ago, a bunch of well-meaning users - including myself, patient, but also a published scientist and recognized experience expert - were happily at work to improve articles such as chronic fatigue syndrome. We found and added a lot of material, and got awarded for our work with a B-status, quite high for such a difficult topic. We even had so much material, that it was decided to create a number of sub-articles, and work was started on those. Sure, there was an editor who occasionally added his pet personal theory to the text, but we patiently dealt with that each time it happened, and the articles kept correctly indicating that CFS is a case definition for a genuine, biomedical disorder, formally known by the diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis, with all the reliable sources to support so.

The situation, and the articles, changed dramatically when two new users started to edit them. In rapid succession, the articles got renamed, stripped from all biomedical sources, and rewritten. If someone protested, they got intimidated. Between the two of them they declared to always have consensus and ignored any other voice, and several medical admins protected their edits if the need arose.

Although the transformation is not yet complete, the current articles now suggest that CFS is not so much a known medical disorder, but more of an unknown behavioural issue, one that can be cured if patients didn't stubbornly refuse to take cognitive behavioural therapy.

It is furthermore stated that, if this is changed back, we purposely hurt patients, and that I am probably getting paid for trying to get biomedical information back in.

No, I do not get paid. In fact, I have no income whatsoever, and expect not to survive this winter because of it; I barely survived the last because of the severity of my illness.

So this is where we are now, and CFS is not the only topic where this has happened either.

The project, that was started to freely spread knowledge, is now spreading propaganda.

Of the users attending the topic of CFS who saw this coming earlier, half a dozen have been permabanned, some on the specific request of Jimbo Wales. The rest have simply been scared off. A whole lot of medical pages is now dominated by a few users who are rewording them to suggest that they are psychosomatic, by falsely attributing conclusions to sources that do not support them, by leaving out the sources (the vast majority, and the highest quality) that say the opposite.

I post this here, in part because Wikipedia offers no better place, but also because it is also an admin issue. You, admins, were made aware of the problem often enough, and you stood by, not idly, but actively supporting what is happening, applying a set of randomly liberal rules to one side, and another set of randomly strict rules to the other.

It is time to make up your mind, because there will not be another opportunity for you. Decide if you want Wikipedia to be the world's best propaganda machine, or to stay true to its original purpose. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For anybody with the time and inclination, I would suggest a patient read through Guido's talk page history. Pay close attention to any diff where the byte count drops significantly. Read the text in the left column of the diff. Draw your own conclusion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

^ yeah, that. — neuro^(talk) 03:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry about Guido's medical problems, I wish him all best. I hope he takes more care about him self, less about how to change Wikipedia policies like wp:medrs. RetroS1mone talk 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If Guido's block log wasn't as long as my arm, his opinion might have a bit more weight. HalfShadow 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the nature of this complaint, but I feel very uneasy seeing comments focusing on the user instead of content. It is called ad hominem, and is a logical fallacy. Please don't do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP is about consensus. When you have 10 simpletons and 1 doctor/engineer/scientist, the simpletons view always wins. My advice would be to give up - wikipedia is about general info for the yokels, it will never be a 'proper' encylopedia for more technical issues.--Dacium (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

that's an overly insulting appraisal of this situation. I went and looked at the article back in April, and now. there are massive changes, I agree. However, I saw neither the spin that Guido alleges (the 'it's all in your head'), nor the brutal ignorance of all other comers, in fact, Guido has multiple edits in the last week. It also looks like one line 'sections', like Insecticide, have been combined with others, or removed if fairly orphaned by their sectioning. All of it looks like it cleaned up a bloated article, shepherded by an editor with an obvious POV (see Guido's talk page), and inflated by editors of the opposing stripe to those cleaning it up. Combine that with guido's block log, and I'm left thinking this is all for the best for Wikipedia, and if we lose Guido, then so be it. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Yokel. Why don't you drop by WP:MED and tell them your theory on how wikipedia works. In my opinion if a scientist or expert on a subject can only rely on their credentials in a discussion, it isn't the fault of the community that it doesn't go their way. Just because someone can't work with other editors or can't present views in proper context doesn't mean that the rest of wikipedia is broken. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the contributors to the page - RetroS1mone, who relies heavily on pubmed results and believes The Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association are highly reliable, more so than the now-unpublished, not medline indexed Journal of Chronic Fatigue (see this RSN discussion). User:Jfdwolff, according to his userpage a doctor and certainly an admin who has managed to not be de-sysopped, suggesting a certain degree of trust. User:Davidruben, another doctor and another admin, also not de-sysopped. User:Sciencewatcher consistently cites reliable sources. User:Tekaphor has been contributing from a CFS-patient position and manages to be quite fruitful in my experience. The page is heavily sourced, to highly reliable journals. That doesn't seem the work of yokels. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Our self-declared expert Guido den Broeder has just indicated that all this was just an experiment to test the behaviour of human beings... [6]. Is there any reason to let this continuous source of disruption edit Wikipedia any longer? HE considers it a health hazard anyway... Fram (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignore it. If he wants to test-drive his results, he can take it to WP:FAIL. It doesn't actually impact the project in any way, it's not a blockable offence, why stir the drama? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a blocklable offence? Assuming that the statement on his userpage is truthful (the purpose, not the results), he has been disrupting Wikipedia for nearly two years just to prove a point... The small hope I still had that he was a well-intentioned but misguided editor has been vaporized, and the chance of him ever changing his editing behavior is actually subzero. Oh well, I'll shut up now :-) Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I support long term ban or indef ban for continual disruption, legal threats, edit warring, incivility, advocating against NPOV, for assorted actions against policy, and for general actions not of benefit to the project, as evidenced by his post above and the "experiment" on his user page. His complete failure to understand the reasons for his previous block, and the implication on his talk page that he would continue to act in this way, while stating a conspiracy against him, all go to show that he needs an enforced wikibreak. Verbal chat 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with the caveat that the did come up with some valid results. Many of the points he raised are well worth pondering. // roux   editor review 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Experts should demonstrate their expertise through their ability to cite the literature. They'll generally have the knowledge of the key articles, access to a far superior library than most wikipedians, both electronic and paper, and can type out a decent sentence. I've never seen reason to let them rule a page and ignore our processes simply because of purported expertise.

Much of the disruption caused by Guido should vanish now, since apparently he's no longer posting on talk pages. If disruption occurs again, that's the point at which I would suggest the final step of an indef block/ban be discussed. This experiment post has no real affect on anything or anyone if we don't let it, so why bother making a big deal about it? That's how wikipedia ends up on the news - '"Free" encyclopedia editable by "anyone" blocks sufferers of chronic conditions' - I don't think the headline would in any way accurately capture the situation, but I'd rather not see it. Though I'll live to regret it, if a block/ban is supported I would suggest one final "if you screw up, you're permablocked" warning. It's probably a futile gesture since I've never seen any evidence of remorse, change or suggestion he was going to take the advice, but what can I say I'm a slave to optimism. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Having recently wandered into this mess after declining Guido's unblock request, I have read through his entire talk page history on a diff by diff basis as well as picked through a month of history. What I have seen is a complete disinterest in getting along with others in a way that makes him a net negative to the project. I had originally suggested to them that they might need mediation to fix the problems on the CFS article, but after fully exploring the issue, I think that the best thing for the article would be an indef block on Guido. I would fully support such a block. Trusilver 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

strongly support block I'd just like to say that in the UK this is often pretty much treated by doctors and government as a psychosomatic condition, so if someone was trying to make this perception of it clear when the article had previously excessively leant towards other theories, the 'psychosomatic mafia' are on the other side of the debate.:) I hope other editors exist who could keep an article WP:NPOV about a physical illness which is treated with anti-depressants, sometimes sleeping tablets, counselling and light exercise, :) and that they aren't threatened with being blocked by a 'psychosomatic mafia'. The person bringing this complaint clearly has a Point of View that this is a physical illness, perhaps to the extent of having a WP:COI, and we must avoid chasing off in general or having a chilling effect on editors who are less personally emotionally involved and so more able to bring about WP:NPOV.Sticky Parkin 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, thanks for reacting to the content of my post. The treatments you mention are, of all treatments, precisely the ones with the poorest results in practice, with exercise in fact hurting more patients than they help. Such treatments are indeed based on a psychosomatic model of the disease, but that model is not the mainstream view internationally, and in fact the UK have been ordered by the WHO to adjust their deviant classification, to which they complied. Treatments based on the biomedical nature of the disease (diet, balance, rest, vitamine B12, painkillers, carnitine, melatonine, etc.) produce far better results. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place to discuss content. The talk page is the place for that. Regards the substance of the post, anything that's well believed should be easy to demonstrate. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who understands the passions of Guido about their illness and wanting the artilce to show the truth of the disease to save others from the same pitfalls, I have to say that Guido cannot edit these articles. He is very passionate about the articles and I understand where he is coming from which is why I tried to see if I could help with some of the tensions arising. Unfortunately I don't think I did help stop anything, this I am sad to say. Guido is a good knowledgable editor but he takes others editing very personal and this doesn't work well here for the well of the project. There are a lot of active editors at CFS so I think that Guido not being one of them would be the best for the project. I don't know what to make of some of his recent comments like his talk page notice or his examples of what the policy of 3RR is. I think for the health of this editor and the best of project, that maybe Guido should either edit for awhile in non-medical related areas of his choice or he be blocked from editing. I say all of this with a heavy heart and a strong understanding of how he feels. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Malcolm - sometimes the editor is the problem. That's why we have blocks, bans, RFC/U, arbitration and WP:SOCK. Have a look through even the Dec. 1-3rd portion of Guido's talk page, then decide if we are being unfair. The content portion of the [[chronic fatigue syndrome article has been settled or is working its way through. The issue is in part the resurrection of previously-settled content issues by the same editor, with no new reasoning beyond "I want it" and no new sources to start a dialogue around. But we have ANI for a reason - to get outside input. Perhaps we're being overzealous. Please, review and let us know. I'm pretty certain it's not a tiny cabal forcing out a good editor. Virtually all admins that have tried to help Guido have enventually turned away. The way Guido responds to this ([7] and [8] in response to this) kinda speaks for itself. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the user may be a problem. But even if that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, all the more reason not to use ad hominems. I know that I can just shrug them off -- as can most healthy people -- but, if someone is known to be ill, an attack on his/her person could have serious negative consequences. Please do not do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good thought, we should all be nice w/ each other, but how do you stop abuse, if I say I am sick do i get to attack everyone, be abusing people, edit warring?? Is it good idea treating editors different based from if they say they have a medical condition?? RetroS1mone talk 03:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

@Malcom, just because I have a serious medical condition I would not expect anyone ever anywhere to treat me differently. If I am unpleasant and disruptive I deserve to be treated just like any other editor. If I get sick because someone is calling a spade a spade then it's time for me to take a long wiki break. Please do not use health issues as a reason for anything here. I take responsibility for my own behavior and my own health, no one else does. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't matter why someone is disruptive. If they're consistently disruptive, fail to improve, don't listen to other editors despite many chances and many blocks, is it appropriate to say "it's not their fault, feel free to keep it up, here's a barnstar for trying?" Disruptive is disruptive, irrespective of cause, and if a POV is too strong to work with other editors then the usual outcome is a topic ban. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the consensus outside the small group of advocates is not that CFS is a biological disease. The consensus is that it is a disorder with no known aetiology. That is what we have to reflect, and using Wikipedia to fix the real-world "problem" that most sources do not identify CFS as a conventional disease at this time, is a violation of policy. Just like Pcarbonn and his advocacy of cold fusion, and many other related topics. We all know that Wikipedia is the number one most important place for activists to put their point across, and we know that they wear down those who support the mainstream view because the advocates are obsessive and the mainstream editors generally aren't. And sooner or later we are going to have to find a way to document this, before the article on alien abduction is rewritten from the abductee standpoint. Because that's the way it's heading. It's more of a surprise to see Guido stooping to accuse everyone else of being in the pay of the "psychosomatic Mafia", though; he's normally a civil POV-pusher. I guess the young-earth creationists think we're a creationist Mafia, but the fact is that if you are an obsessive on one wing of a subject you have to think long and hard where the true midpoint is. Guido has lost sight of this. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JRH95 and also User:EagleScout18

JRH95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wonder what to make of a user who has made a grand total of 13 edits to date, nominates himself for admin, then seemingly nominates User:Blanchardb for admin, except again with JRH95 as the subject, if I'm reading it right. JRH95's most recent "work" has been to try to push conspiracy theories on the Barack Obama page. A fine candidate for admin, yes indeedy. A joke of a nomination, but there's something odd going on here, looks to me. Any other opinions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too fishy to me, just a confused new user, maybe? — neuro^(talk) 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe needs a friendly, encouraging gesture of reaching out and showing the ropes around here? Speaking of confused newbies, EagleScout18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a train wreck waiting to happen, more like a train wreck in progress. I have no idea how one might respond to this but he has been starting poorly formatted RfCs all over the place, accusing editors of vandalism, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Train wreck indeed! You, an experienced user, know better than to remove templates against policy, such as you have done with Barack Obama-related articles, for which you have already been reported. EagleScout18 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Experienced users also know to have normal discussion on the talk page for awhile. Going the RFC route is premature, to say the least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the editor is digging up dirt on others' edit histories, quoting all kinds of policies (if inaptly and manipulatively), edit warring, etc., looks very troll-like. It's definitely peculiar. It could just be someone thinking that doing battle is the way to get things done here. But we may also want to consider the possibility that this is a sockpuppet of someone who knows how to disrupt things. It's just strange.Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very strange edit.[9] Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not experienced. Does that mean I don't deserve civility and WP:AGF? I have not violated a single policy, unlike certain experienced users. It is safe to that that reporting me to ANI is beyond premature. It's WP:BITE. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop fighting other editors, please. This is a friendly caution, you are causing a lot of unnecessary disruption. Technically you are breaking many policies, but practically you are also creating a big mess that others have to clean up. Instead of attacking other editors for trying to cope, and undoing their efforts, please take the time to figure out how things work around here. If not you will soon be blocked from editing to give you a chance to learn the rules. That's not a good way to get started. If you are interested in Wikipedia and want to have a good productive time here, slow down and chill, please. Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which policies am I breaking? EagleScout18 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you now have other accounts on Wikipedia, or have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts in the past? Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict- reply to EagleScout18's question about breaking policies) WP:DISRUPTION for starters. Take a break, edit an article that is not controversial, and read the several warning messages (and their links) that you removed from your talk page. Including the one from an admin that you removed, the one where your edit summary was "remove vandalism".[10] ~ priyanath ^talk 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In trying to gain consensus over edit warring, I hardly call that a violation of WP:DISRUPTION. Reverting an unwelcome (non-admin) editor's REPEATED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EagleScout18&action=history reversions to my talk page is not a policy violation, which this diff reveals, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EagleScout18&diff=255559909&oldid=255558766, is a removal of vandalism. That user was warned and the matter thus closed. I see no policy violation. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling a lawful warning "vandalism" does not make you look very good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, never did I call a "lawful" warning vandalism. And further, no policy violations. A false statement, then. Thank you, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "fair" warning would be a better term, but in any case you did it here [11] here [12] here [13] and here [14]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, where I removed what had been removed before the reverter repeatedly reverted. In other words, vandalism. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to User:JRH95

Resolved

 – Checkuser shows no connection; Blanchardb withdrew in good faith, due to the trouble JRH95 caused by nominating him

The curious nomination by this newbie, of User:Blanchardb to admin, right after nominating himself, has been accepted by User:Blanchardb, who erased my "oppose" comment. I wonder what's up with this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mystery solved (perhaps?). The editor was trying to nominate User:Blanchardb but by forgetting to replace the name in a form template ended up nominating him/herself! See here.[15] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. Why would a brand newbie nominate Blanchardb in one of his/her first actions here? Could be an offwiki buddy of Blanchardb. That isn't prohibited is it? Maybe just ask? Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was wondering. Not prohibited as far as I know. But if you think they're buddies, just check out Blanchard's curiously dismissive comment toward JRH95: [16] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But, re: User:EagleScout18

Resolved

 – EagleScout18 has been blocked indefinitely by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Icewedge (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept apologies, cake, party favors, what have you. Thanks in advance. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up your disruptive approach, and you'll have a "block party". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hysterical. Not. But apologies, I accept. Thank you in advance, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be a long wait. I'm now convinced that you're a troll, if not also a sock, so in the absence of any new developments, we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm now convinced you're accustomed to biting newcomers and falsely accusing them of violating policy solely on the basis of disagreement. So, NOW "we're done here," EagleScout18 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout is now labelling anyone who disagrees with him as being "biased": [17] Contentiousness, incivility, attitude... Not at all a promising start for a newbie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, biting newcomers, berating, incivility, bullying? Not a promising future for a non-newbie. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just before calling us "biased", he made minor edits to the articles Bias and Autocracy. Now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other shoe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_projection&diff=prev&oldid=255593831 EagleScout18 (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are improvements so maybe we can see some random acts of constructive trolling. If I say I'm hungry will he do grammar fixes to the article on bacon? Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naw. I don't care for pigs. EagleScout18 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Too funny. Good catch here, you're a good copy editor.[18] I think I'm done for the night. 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's hope for me yet. 'Night, EagleScout18 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit [19] fairly much telegraphs the user's viewpoint, which is to push a right-wing agenda. In case there was doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Merely pointing out hypocrisies. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout, please remember not to talk about WP:BITECLUB. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Why do you keep bringing it up? EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Barack Obama still on probation? I cannot believe this has been allowed to string out so long. If this guy has any further interest in antagonising the situation let's get on and use those rules. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that the moment you refer to me as "antagonizing" you antagonize me? EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Should I use pig latin? He is armlesshay, just ankingyay our ainchay. Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No please don't. As a one time Latin scholar, I find the whole concept of "pig-Latin" particularly laughable... – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I too. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ootay atelay.. ;) // roux   editor review 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion Agree. A waste of ANI space. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as big a waste as the multiple RFC's were. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost as big a waste as sarcastic and banal commentary. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Take it off ANI. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think EagleScout's rude and offensive behavior here is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Grsz¹¹ 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In defense of what might look like arbitrary silliness, I think Bugs and I decided that EagleScout was trolling here, and were trying to use humor to keep things lively and cheerful - without the power to block, scolding trolls only makes things worse. Plus how often do you get to use pig latin on AN/I (sorry, ukexpat). - Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think arbitrary silliness needs defending at all. Up the Very Silly Party, down the sourpuss and killjoy. L0b0t (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Banime's longterm, admitted vandalism

Banime admitted here that he is attempting to game Wikipedia by producing a few meaningful edits between pieces of subtle vandalism like Podtats, which he created (and admits to here and here). That article is designed to do nothing else except demean and disparage Jarin Udom. User should be blocked as admitted, persistent vandal. TGH1970 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• ? Protonk (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not vandalism per se, and the editor is constantly on IRC talking contstructively, calmly, and correctly too, just to let you know. — neuro^(talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Read the original versions and portions of the existing text (like the "units sold" portion of the infobox, for instance) and it becomes clear that this page had only one purpose. If you go and actually read that thread you can see this user comping to all that and more. TGH1970 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also Slowrun, which is (was) an obvious hoax. TGH1970 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless Banime confirms that the user is indeed him, then we can't do anything unless you have some proof. — neuro^(talk) 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually... hm. — neuro^(talk) 05:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also Weedpunk, this post and this edit to the very same article he posted about. TGH1970 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• And this post and this edit. These are the same user. TGH1970 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• This user may be User:Dans1120, who was indefblocked for vandalism a little over a year ago, the same time that this account registered. TGH1970 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. They share no articlespace edits (or any other that I can see). That's relatively rare for socks or accounts run by the same person, though neither impossible nor unheard of. That account did work on Zybourne Clock (look at old deleted diffs, if you can), which was added to the SA post and the wikipedia article in the above links. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the SA account is linked. I will talk to Banime on IRC if nobody catches him first. — neuro^(talk) 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's not a whole lot to discuss. He's admitted he's a vandal, that he intends to vandalize further and he's deliberately attempting to game the system so he doesn't get caught. It's pretty open and shut at this point. TGH1970 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To an admin seeing this, should rollback be removed from this account. I was the admin to grant Banime's request for it, and based on what I've read above I would remove it, but I've just logged in briefly to check my watchlist before I go to bed (in a minute). Thanks -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm perplexed by this to say the least. I can't find a justification why he would make the Podtats article or why he would defend it...but I can't accept the premise that he makes "various insignificant content edits" and then subtly vandalizes. That characterization doesn't appropriately describe his edits who has 500 edits to Frederick III, German Emperor and is shepherding it through FAC. Also, I'll be in the cold, cold grave before I take something from SA at face value in determining whether to brand an editor as a vandal. I suggest we move pretty slowly through this. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Meh, looks more likely.... Protonk (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm convinced. Either someone saw his edits and logged into that account on SA within minutes to post in those threads each time or annefrankfanatic==banime. Protonk (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Podtats deleted as a G10. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm going to bed. In my opinion this isn't an open and shut case. It looks possible (though very unlikely in my mind) that User:Banime==User:Dans1120. If that is the case (probably can't be confirmed/denied technically) then it is open and shut. However it is likely that Banime is just Banime. He's a wikipedian, or has become one (in the sense that he seems to have adopted the norms and habits of a long term user) but he is probably also "anne frank fanfic" on Something Awful. This means that he's had a laugh at the expense of wikipedia a few times. That's disruptive, though not something I'd ratchet up to a block immediately. Also, (and of more concern), it looks like he created Podtats with the express intent to attack someone (or at least ridicule). In both the "weedpunk" and "podtats" cases he knew our sourcing policies and feigned ignorance in order to keep the articles going. Having said this, I really do believe that he likes it here and contributes positively in a manner that far outweighs (assuming we are just making net benefit comparisons) his relatively minor hoaxes. The right answer is to send a message that we won't put up with this under any circumstances and we are unwilling to just watch him closely to ensure he doesn't do this again (create an elaborate or carefully constructed hoax). How we want to send that message (or ensure it is received clearly) is a matter for discussion. I'm not going to block him before I go, but I don't object to a block from another admin (of course). I'm also not going to remove rollback (I don't see the point). Protonk (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• So Weedpunk is a confirmed hoax which Banime created, then defended at AFD? If so, this is a major problem; deliberately inserting nihilartikels is a pretty serious problem, in my view. I'd consider this a basis for a ban, at least unless Banime identifies and removes all remaining problem articles. We should not tolerate people who intentionally attempt to damage the integrity of the encyclopedia, especially with deliberately falsified information. east718 // talk // email // 08:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having just gone through the AFD discussion, I want to point out that in that discussion Banime coordinated with a number of his online buddies to have them try and alter the outcome of that discussion with a bunch of anonymous and newly registered accounts. For this user to attempt to save a hoax article with votestacking through meat (and possibly sock) puppetry is grounds for any person to be blocked indefinitely. I agree that some of his contributions are meaningful, but we also have no way of knowing whether all those edits were truly constructive since his credibility has now dropped to nothing. TGH1970 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to be rude but the time for advocacy is over. You've made your case (and evidently don't want to give us any perspective on why you would make it). the evidence you presented is compelling. We don't need more rhetoric about how to resolve this. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting here right now to show you I've read this discussion after neurolysis posted it on my talk page, and I'll be back with a reply to address these points. However, until then, if someone wishes to ban me then I'd ask to hold off until after my current FAC closes, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, as I'd like to be able to respond to the opposes to continue improving the article. I'll be back later with a response. --Banime (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Woah, guys, tell me if this has been mentioned before, but something is up. Something is very fishy about the person starting this thread. — neuro^(talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't mention it before but I was thinking about it. It is rather fishy to have this account drop by out of the blue to say this about Banime. that doesn't make the underlying accusation untrue. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, the relation here is that I was reading the forums and came across the Podtats thread, where I discovered that anne frank fanfic had created it. Through that I discovered he had created a range of hoaxes and then filed this report. There is no connection to any earlier dispute, just that I came across it on the forums. TGH1970 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pondering whether or not to erase the four posts immediately above, and then mine. Banime has asked for time and promised to be back later with a response. It is just basic common decency to grant him that time and in the meantime leave this thread alone.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not erase them, but at least hold off on further replies and speculation. — neuro^(talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stating that they can be redacted because "they amount to a bad faith campaign by Banime to discredit [you]" is utterly ridiculous, since Banime has not posted anything in this thread that is campaigning against you, they merely acknowledged reading through the thread. If you wish to accuse me of something, please say it, don't beat around the bush. — neuro^(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:AGF there is absolutely no reason for you to throw around accusations of conspiracy. We looked at your evidence, despite the obvious fact that this was not your first account and that you might have something to gain by presenting information selectively. If you continue to rail and fulminate about this to otherwise patient and helpful users or make vague threats like "you will have a lot of explaining to do" you will probably be excused from this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (e/c) For someone that shouts around conspiracy theories of bad faith, you sure do forget to assume good faith. You are really starting to annoy me right now, especially in calling me a meatpuppet (it was blatantly directed at me, don't try to deny it). I am probably not going to respond again until you back off from acting like I am some sort of cross-country sock of Banime. I do not condone what Banime has done, in fact if the allegations are true in whole then I condemn it, but that does not give you the right to address me like you are my mother. Banime has multiple times said that he will not judge me if I disengage and back away from the situation completely, but that does not appeal to me because what I am 'regurgitating' right now is my own opinion, and my own feelings towards the situation, not Banime's - whether our feelings in certain areas are similar or not is irrelevant. I am taken aback by you saying that I "should be careful about the company [I] keep", that is utterly uncalled for and grossly offensive. The editors I choose to converse with are of my choosing and not yours, and don't you forget that. As for having 'some explaining to do', I don't even know what to say it is so ridiculous, and I take it as a threat. This is the last comment you will hear from me on this subject, any subsequent messages will be directly related to the topic at hand, unless I am called upon to do otherwise. Now please desist, and get back on the topic - of which you are a subject too, despite the fact that you are so insistent that you are not. The person submitting the report is liable to scrutiny, especially in such suspicious circumstances as yours, so don't try and divert the fact that it looks extremely odd that a contributor who is making their first edits suddenly comes to AN/I and requests a block - it simply does not happen. Now lets get back on topic, and back to constructive discussion, shall we? Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm back with a response, thanks for your patience. As I looked at who accused me I saw he was pretty new and his contributions were 50% about me, so I thought something was kind of weird, which is why I filed that checkuser. It was declined, however I felt I had good reason to at the time because of the circumstances. Enough about the person whos made these claims, because, even if they were in bad faith (which I am not assuming), the severity of his claims have caused even good faith contributors to examine the evidence. I will assume it is good faith of course and respond accordingly. I'll number my points if anyone would like to respond to them by number (or I can bulletize them if its annoying).

1. First thing that shouldn't need to be said, is off wiki is always off wiki. I'm sure there are a number of editors and possibly administrators that belong to wikipedia criticism sites (which as far as I can tell is one of the purposes of the SomethingAwful site he showed), yet that shouldn't even come into the equation when judging a person's contributions to the site. I never try to judge anyone based on off wiki contributions. That being said, since it has been brought up against me, I am not annefrankfanatic.
2. One of the first and easiest claims to refute against me is that I am User:Dans1120. I am not, please checkuser me if you'd like. I have never had another account.
3. Another easy one to refute, he brings up that I sockpuppeted one of my first AfDs, which I did not. Please checkuser me if you'd like. I have never used another account.
4. Weedpunk was my first article creation, 9 months ago, and in retrospect was wrong according to WP:N. It was one of my earlier edits. I still believe weedpunk is real, and I have heard the term in discussions before (and I thought written), but since I have not found a reliable source mentioning it so far in my search it was wrong to put it up at the time. It was a definite question of WP:N. The article was never a "confirmed hoax", as TGH1970 is bringing up often, please read the AfD, the closing admin simply said there were no reliable sources. However, I suppose you are free to believe that the website TGH1970 is providing is the definite resource on what is fake in the world of relatively minor literary genres. Perhaps the name is odd or seldom used but much literature fits under its definition, I just haven't found reliable sources for it and therefore it was wrong of me to put it up.
5. Slowrun, which I made about 6 months ago as well, as TGH1970 claims is another "obvious hoax". Of course, please read the AfD, and see that it was never an obvious hoax and many video gamers wanted to merge or keep it. However, consensus eventually developed that there were no reliable sources for it. Obviously speedruns, longplays and I thought slowruns were all pretty well known terms but just because the gaming community uses them doesn't mean they belong in wikipedia unless there are reliable sources describing them in significant coverage. Another Wp:N mistake of mine. After this, I started editting more heavily, learned the rules, and decided to be very cautious when making articles like these so that I wouldn't make the same mistakes.
6. And I didn't until now with Podtats apparently. This was a few months ago, and I still believe the article has merits. Perhaps I got the name wrong, and iPod tattoos would be better, but if you read the article it was all real. Udom first started the idea with podtats.com so I used the term podtats. That was wrong in retrospect as again it didn't have the proper reliable sources. Besides that the article was pretty well sourced and described a lot more than Udom including current ipod tattoos, companies that do it, and techniques.
7. The website links he brought up. Apparently there is some sort of vandalism contest going on there, and I perhaps have been targetted somehow for an elaborate troll. I don't claim to know the motivations of anyone, but if someone had wished to get an innocent user banned, I suppose it may be easy to follow them around and post the edits they do and say you did it on an outside website. TGH1970 said (in reply that he deleted later from this very ANI here) that he was just "reading the forums" of that website and "came across it", but the pages he linked to were not on the first page, second page, third page, or even 108th page. They were on the 109th page of that website, which would mean he must have known where to look beforehand. I always assume good faith but when you lay such serious claims down on me such as these I'm sorry if I can't help but think that there may be a possibility of ulterior motives. If you are not annefrankfanatic or some other troll, I apologize. However, it looks increasingly possible, and at the very least, very odd.

Well if you wanted to scour over my mistakes with regards to WP:N with some of my earliest edits, you've succeeded I suppose. Next time, TGH1970, just ask me to put up an editor review though, it may be easier. --Banime (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you explain the timing between the posts on SA and the inclusion of the content on WP? In other words, we are concerned that you made those entries deliberately to disrupt wikipedia based on the short time between your edits here and the post "announcing" them on that noticeboard--less than a minute in one case. That would seem to contradict your claim that you made those errors out of ignorance. Are you asserting (to be clear) that the synchronicity of those posts is part of an elaborate trolling or vandalism scheme to make it seem as though your edits would be illegitimate? Protonk (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I don't like anything but assuming good faith and leaving off-wiki things out of wiki discussions, as I have said. However since these claims have been brought up I'll be as clear as I can be. I believe due to TGH1970's sketchy account creation and edit circumstances, bad tempered replies, false reasons for coming up with this report ("was just browsing") and knowing exactly where to find those links to the 109th page of that website, that I believe it is very possible for him to have done so. I am not annefrankfanatic. He may in fact be, or another troll, based on this evidence alone. --Banime (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I'm not clear. I don't care about the content of what was written off wiki. I care that what was written off wiki, if it was written by you, would show that you knowlingly created and defended hoax articles or edits (Here I mean weekpunk not slowrun, which was just nn, not a hoax) or poorly sourced "attack" articles (podtats). And I want you to say, without ambiguity, that the posts made there, literally minutes after you made edits on wikipedia about the same subject and all by the same name were not made by you but were instead made by some other user in an attempt to harass you. An attempt, I might add, that did not bear fruit until months later and solely by suggesting a possible link between the two. What TGH1970 is or is not is unrelated. If he is a troll or a sock he will be blocked indefinitely. What is important is that we can trust you. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I did not make those posts. If you're concerned by the "months long" part, the third rule for the aforementioned vandalism contest state "3) i will keep track of your edits for at least 1 (one) month or more" which seems time isn't too much of an issue. --Banime (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ok. Despite some rather deep reservations I trust you. I would be saddened to learn that you were lying. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Are you kidding me? You're going to blame for all of this? Have you looked at Banime's edit history? He is obviously the one who has created these articles, he's obviously the one who has repeatedly made edits seconds after posting about on the forums and he has obviously created Podtats as a mean to smear Jarin Udom. You're actually going to turn around and say that this is some kind of massive conspiracy against him? The evidence here is overwhelming, and most of it comes from Banime's own edit history and I cannot believe you're going to turn around and blame me for filing this report. TGH1970 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm going to say that I trust him. He's told me (despite the fact that he knows I know the facts of the matter) that he didn't do it. If he is lying to me, so be it. I chose to believe that he is not. Another admin may feel differently, but getting upset about it won't change anything. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, that's a pretty lousy administrative decision then. Of course I will wait for an unbiased third party to actually review the evidence here, because simply taking his word for it has to be the most shortsighted explanation for dismissing piles of evidence that I've ever heard of. TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  You are welcome to that opinion, of course. I'm not stupid, by the way. Nor am I biased. Nor is my claim that I trust banime the end of the discussion here (as Category:Administrators is well populated). Protonk (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, well now I have an IP that can be checked: this post and this edit. I think a checkuser would be justified in this instance. TGH1970 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do so if it will put this to rest. --Banime (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Banime does not have a vanity host set up, and has given me explicit permission to post his IRC mask. His IRC mask (ie the one he is currently using) is PC-1110.STUDFB.UniBw-Muenchen.de, which is in Germany. The WHOIS of the IP mentioned is available here (I did have the WHOIS up, but I think it may be copyrighted). In short, there is no checkuser needed to know that they are in different continents - the IP is in Australia. — neuro^(talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe either one of you. If that's not Banime it's his proxy. TGH1970 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• this post and this edit. This post and the creation date of Slowrun (which I can't see because I'm not an admin, but which I'm certain is almost the exact same time). TGH1970 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be found is whether any posts on SA were made before the editing on Wikipedia occurred. Obviously no links will occur because you would only link after you create, but if you can find clear intent... there you go then. — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The evidence is overwhelming. There is no point in pretending that this is anybody except Banime. Putting your own ridiculous requirements on the evidence doesn't make it any less significant. Any unbiased third party would clearly see these are the same people. TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying. If Banime didn't do this than someone who is out to smear him did. If he did do it, he should already know that the right answer is to come clean and fess up to it. My suggestion to you is that if you feel you are correct the proper route is to collect this information, present it in a fashion that makes your case (show the times of the edits and the posts, for starters) and make a clear, articulate and dispassionate argument that Banime==annefrankfanfic. Please do not get upset because we trust Banime more than we trust you. He is part of the community here and we aim to make this feel like a community--we don't want to throw him out on his ass at the merest hint of impropriety. We aren't blind to facts and argumentation, but some bias cannot be removed. Please understand that. No matter who is correct, the truth will come out in the wash. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• This post andthese edits. If this is somebody's underhanded conspiracy it would be one of the most complex and discrete in the history of the world. TGH1970 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how any of these new links you are posting are linked to me in any way and can be conceived of as vandalism in any sense of the word. They were not me, the IP proves that definitively. Annefrankfanatic said he was going to vandalize that link to X factor that you posted. He did so. The ip was from Australia. I live in Germany. --Banime (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the post two up manages to link them. Am I missing something? — neuro^(talk) 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Banime: Just so the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, please confirm that you mistyped when you wrote above, "I am not annefrankfanatic" but meant to write "I am not anne frank fanfic", the user name of the poster at Somethingawful.com. Assuming that is out of the way, I gotta say I am appalled at the way this thread has progressed. Especially, I am sorry to say, the judgment exhibited by Protonk, the only admin with a substantial presence in the thread. An editor in good standing has been accused without sustainable evidence of serious infractions, and all you can think of writing is, "Despite some rather deep reservations I trust you," and "If he is lying to me, so be it. I chose to believe that he is not." The Germans have a phrase for this, they call it "a second-class acquittal". What Banime deserves instead is to have his name cleared in a resounding manner.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had the name wrong. I am not the user that TGH1970 accused me of being, "anne frank fanfic". --Banime (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Really? In order to trust him I have to accept that someone stalked banime's good faith but misguided edits so closely that they posted to an SA forum within minutes of seeing them over multiple threads (at SA) and multiple articles (here) and that the person posting there was just hoping that banime's edits would be questionable (and was around no matter when they were made) and impersonated him on a forum off wiki (using a totally unrelated forum name). That's a staggering coincidence. It takes a hell of a lot to say "yes I trust you" when his word is the only exculpatory evidence. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. "Questionable edits," eh? -- Except that there is nothing at all wrong with the edits, even if they're not fit to be chiseled in stone and enshrined in Wikipedia 1.0. "Within minutes," you say? (A) How do you know that: what timezone does SA use, and what timezone does WP use? (B) Of course I can follow someone around on WP via "user contributions" and react in under a minute by reflecting a post on another website, no technical expertise required. So, guilty until proven innocent? (Counting the seconds until an imbecile tells me WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.) I gotta stop, this is giving me heartburn.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure. Questionable edits. Hoaxes. Subtle vandalism. A poorly sourced article that was a coatrack attack on a person. There is nothing wrong with these edits if they are taken in isolation. Creating Weedpunk is not an "offense" in any reasonable definition. But if it was created deliberately as a hoax w/ knowledge of our content guidelines, that is different. As for the time zone thing, ok. I'll bite. the SA times are probably shown in GMT. IF they aren't, then the posts to SA are (some constant number of hours) + 1-2 minutes each time. Tell me which one is more likely. As for the guilty before innocent drama, spare me. If we were really terrible people willing to ban banime at the drop of a hat he would have been indeffed a day ago. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Logout and all the times will match up in GMT. The reason they match up for you (Goodmorningworld) is because you've set the clock correctly on both your Wikipedia account and your SA forums account. TGH1970 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• The evidence is overwhelming. Banime will not be acquitted because the only evidence he can produce to the contrary is his own word saying he didn't do it. I reject that. The IP thing is a red herring since Banime is likely using a proxy. The user on SA and the user here are the same person. TGH1970 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  You brought up the IP yourself, as a way of finally discerning guilt or innocence. Because it did not show the way you were arguing are not means to throw it out. As of now it is the most provable of your links, since, at 17 November, 2008 08:17 by that websites time, there is a post stating that he is about to vandalize. At 13:19 wikitime, the vandalism occurs(I'm pretty sure the hours are due to time zone differences and the minutes are what you should be concerned with). Within seconds, at 08:19 forums time he posts the vandalism in that link. This is almost guaranteed to be him, the ip was checked and it was from Australia. As stated before, I live in Germany. This is the only definitive proof that I can show, besides my word against the word of your very odd account and a website called something awful which apparently is a humor website.--Banime (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked, TGH, it was 'innocent until proven guilty'. — neuro^(talk) 01:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TGH, as I said before, you repeating that the evidence is overwhelming doesn't move the conversation forward. AN/I is an exceedingly well trafficked board and plenty of users besides neuro, banime and myself have seen this thread. If you were going to find takers on the "this evidence is compelling" front, you would have found them by now. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• You yourself have said that it is very difficult for you to believe that Banime did not do things he is accused of doing. You've also said that the only reason you don't believe that is because he told you he didn't. Even though we have a record of his edits that show that he did.
• And now, on your talk page, you're talking about running a checkuser on me. Why are you attacking me for reporting this at ANI? What is so vitally important about Banime's contributions that you are willing to overlook egregious breeches of policy so that you can go after the person who filed the report? What have I done wrong in all of this except try to protect the encyclopedia from a person who has admitted they are trying to undermine the integrity of the project? TGH1970 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one is attacking you. A checkuser will probably get filed to try and get to the bottom of things. If you are using another account concurrently and have made this one to avoid scrutiny being cast on that account, that is a problem. If you have just abandoned the old account then there isn't a problem. If you aren't using the old account you could just end this right now and tell us what it is. A situation like this is starved for context. We are trying to provide it. Also, I'm eminently pleased that both you and Goodmorningworld think I'm doing a poor job of this for exactly opposite reasons. Gives me some hope that I might be doing the right thing. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• No. And I will fight any attempt to run a checkuser. I have committed no violation and this is now a witch hunt by several parties to try and fabricate a reason that Banime cannot be guilty of doing what he has done. There is absolutely no context needed here on my part. I've already explained (several times) how and why I discovered the violation being made and then reported it. That's as much due process as I need to go through. No other context is required for reports at ANI. Stop trying to make this about me when you are deliberetely refusing to acknowledge evidence against Banime. TGH1970 (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Protonk has filed a second checkuser request against me, after Banime's initial request has been rejected. A second (and third and fourth) administrator needs to review this thread and make a judgment call so this circus can finally end. TGH1970 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• That request has also been declined. I would ask any (other) administrator now to review this case and make a ruling based on the facts. TGH1970 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request TGH1970 to please stop attempting to disrupt all of my edits from here on out, such as with this. You seem very dismayed that I'm not constantly at ANI for some reason, but I'd rather continue my work here on wikipedia than keep reporting to this thread. Its very disrupting of you to post such a thing. If anyone would like to scour over my every edit to that article than please do so. However as it is now its just disrupting the process of further improving the encyclopedia. You've made your claims here TGH1970, and thankfully none of them have anything to do with any edits earlier than a few months ago, so I'd appreciate it if while this ANI is being carried out you'd refrain from trying to disrupt anything I'm working on. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to ask a neutral editor or admin as well, if that edit should be allowed to stand on the FAC? Thanks for your time and input. --Banime (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your edits need to be scrutinized. You have lost any credibility in this encyclopedia. TGH1970 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've asserted that many times, but until this ANI is complete I'd really appreciate it if you stayed out of what I was working on if all you intend to do is disrupt it. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• You should first give WP:OWN a good once over. The users on that page are entitled to know what you've been up to and what the possible outcome of that could be on their featured article. TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that policy relates with anything you've said. --Banime (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• And one more thing about all of this: Jarin Udom is user Jargon on the Something Awful forums. The Podtats idea originated in FYAD and was only discussed there. There are no other sources from anywhere about Podtats, so Banime's material for that article had to have come directly out of that subforum. Considering his many derisive remarks about Jarin Udom' habits (all of which also originated in FYAD), this user demonstrates a level of knowledge about him that could not have come from any other place except the FYAD subforum at Something Awful. TGH1970 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  Udom created the website Podtats.com --Banime (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• But most of the information you inserted into that article was not public knowledge, nor was it publicly accessible through any other place except the Something Awful forums. How do you explain that? TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• This all seems rather silly. Banime's push for Frederick the III is enough evidence that he is a standard user who produces valuable content. The burden of evidence has not been met to prove otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• You should read the thread more carefully. Your friend appears to be rather two-faced about his participation in the project. TGH1970 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should look into your history before you start throwing around comments like "your friend". I don't have a relationship with the user. You, however, seem to have one. If anyone is biased, you surely seem to be the person. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Important point #2: on his userpage, Banime makes reference to a stand up routine originated by Something Awful user Daniel "Flying Squid" Geduld (an article which User:Dans1120 was indefblocked for creating). Specifically, where he says "Goofy is my favorite, gorsh" is a reference to a specific part of this routine (at 1:00) which was widely panned by the FYAD subforum of SomethingAwful.com. One of the latest threads to do so is here and relevant pieces of that thread are here (from indefblocked Wikipedia user Rubber cat) and here (in the quote). TGH1970 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Second set of eyes needed on 3RR report decision - are admins above the law?

Please see this.

User:Number 57, an admin, reverted six times to change the word Palestine to Palestinian territories, once after the filing of the attached 3RR report. User:Spartaz, invoking the need for fairness, gave the editors who reverted those edits, most of whom did so once each, warnings from the I-P arbcomm case, and decided not to block Number 57. Note that the only editor who violated 3RR was Number 57, no other editor came close. Note too that Number 57 rejected all requests to engage in discussion at the talk page.

Please review the link above. I think this decision sends a terrible message. If you're an admin, you can violate 3RR and nothing will happen to you. If you're a regular editor who decides to revert an admin once, you get a warning that you may be blocked in the future for disruptive editing. Also, the page has been protected for 48 hours at Number 57's preferred version, rewarding his reverting. Is this right? Tiamut^talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that three changes to the article (Hummus) were largely to remove a section of text which turned it into an anti-Israel attack article.[20] It is also an admins' responsibility for ensuring that policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are implemented, hence the usage of proper (rather than propagandist) terminology. The fact that an article about a foodstuff has been turned into a place to detail anti-Israel rants is, frankly, ridiculous. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And what you fail to recognize is that there is no excuse for violating 3RR. You did not recognize before I filed the report and you still don't recognize it now, likely because you were not blocked for your actions.

To others reading this, I should mention that Spartaz asked that readers be directed to the 3RR section, linked above, and his talk page for his rationale. He is busy now and will not be able to respond directly here. Tiamut^talk 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Number 57 should have asked other people for help rather than edit warring. However, the page is now protected, and User:Spartaz seems to have warned all the involved users to stop edit warring. So I don't see a need for additional admin action at this time.

The root issue here seems to be the inclusion in the article on Hummus of polemical material about Israel and Palestine. I have pre-emptively added Kosher salt to my watchlist in case the dispute spreads to that article.— Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry Number57 but if it's not listed under Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions, you are breaking the 3RR, even if with good intentions. No matter what one thinks of Tiamut's editing, it is as he says: It broadcasts a terrible message if others who revert in good faith are punished and you are not.

I understand why you did act like this but going alone versus multiple editors is not a good way. You should really try to avoid such edit-warring, because being an admin does not mean the rules that are very strict do not apply to you. I would not suggest any sanction but a fair warning like anyone breaking 3RR gets on their first violation. But Spartaz is correct that even admins can and will be blocked if they break the rules. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the recommended action for next time I find such nonsense on an article? I've seen plenty of stuff reported to ANI over the past two years with almost zero results, hence my lack of bothering to come here to ask for help. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to find a neutral way to rephrase the material. If you can't do that, in a last case, remove the material once. Either way, explain your thoughts on the talk page. It the material is reverted, ask either at WP:ECCN or WP:POVN to get some uninvolved editors to look into the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not above the law, of course. As with any police force, we need to watch the watchers. See: User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)What Number 57 reverted six times was the word Palestine, and not that other material, which by the way, I did not add, but merely copy edited and restored after it was deleted. To pretend that he is on the right side of a content dispute evades the issue, which is his violation of 3RR to pursue his POV that Palestinian territories is more appropriate terminnology, against what is outlined in the source cited (which says quite clearly "Palestine"). Tiamut^talk 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted this as well [21]. Neither of you is "right" and, in the end, the literal wording of the source isn't a determining factor. Nobody should be edit warring over this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did restore the word Palestine once. What you see in the rest of that diff is my attempt to copy edit down the material added by another editor that Number 57 removed. My requests to Number 57 to discuss the matter on the talk page, were ignored. He instead accused me of "bad judgement" on my talk page. I'm not perfect no, but I tried to de-escalate the situation. Number 57 continued to revert after I asked him to discuss and another editor warned him against edit-warring. All of this is in the link posted at the top of this section. I find the lack of recognition between the differences in my approach and that of Number 57's to be a bit weird. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already said, and again: Number 57 should not be edit warring there. If you tried to de-escalate this in the past, that was a great idea. Are you still trying to de-escalate it now? The post at the 3RR board has been resolved, and no admin is likely to overrule the resolution that Spartaz decided on. If another incident arises with Number 57 (or anyone else involved in that edit war), the resolution may be different next time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)::::Asking for a decision to be reviewed to see if it was implemented fairly is "escalation"?

When one editor reverts six times while most of the other editors involved revert him each once, should everyone be treated equally? When he continues to revert after the 3RR report is filed, does he show any indication that he understands that the behaviour he was engaged in was wrong?

Having been blocked by User:Spartaz over a year ago for making 3 reverts in 24 hours when other parties were involved, and no one else was sanctioned, I find this decision doubly weird. True, he overturned my block, but only after other editors protested.

In august last year I had been an admin for a month or so and, I'm glad to say, I have mellowed a great deal since then and am not really at all block happy as an admin these days. I cringe about some of the blocks I issued as a new admin so, if I got it wrong then I'm very sorry. I have learned that 3RR is a very blunt instrument and doesn't deal with the underlying causes of disruption. I acted to deal with the underlying cause in this case (the importation of Israel-Palestinian arguments into a new article) and while I'm sorry for the fact that you are unhappy I genuinely believe I acted in the best interests of the project. This isn't the first time that there has been a complaint that I didn't block someone for a 3RR and it won't be the last. I accept that there was some inconsistency here compared to my block of you but please remember that over a year has passed, that admins do mellow and are also human. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, even though Number 57 made 4 reverts in 24 hours and two others just thereafter, one of which was made after I filed the 3RR report, Spartaz's response was to issue warnings to all the other editors involved, protect the page at Number 57's version, and then give him a warning too, citing the need for "fairness", and the not singling out any one editor.

Can you possibly see why someone with my experience might find this to be a rather odd outcome?

However, if you think everything was dealt with fairly and well here, I guess there's no point in beating a dead horse. Just my Palestinian paranoia, and all that jazz. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Spartaz. I now understand how your approach to 3RR has evolved and accept your decision was made in good faith. I was very peeved when Number 57 continued to revert after I filed the report, and disappointed that it did not elicit a strong reaction from you when in my experience, it would have previously. But I think you are right to believe that the message has now been delivered, and your solution seems like a wholly workable one. My apologies for wasting everybody's time. Tiamut^talk 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I think either outcome of this could have been totally justified. I think Number 57 did break 3RR as the POV edits he reverted, while they were indeed highly POV, weren't over the line into outright vandalism. That being said, he was clearly acting in good faith to preserve a neutral article: the edits he made were, I think, correct except for the fact that he made too many of them. A 3RR block would have been justified at the time, but the edit-war stopped anyway and blocks are not intended to be punitive or used to make a statement. Certainly Number 57 should make an effort to enlist help in these cases in the future, though. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. The reversions were to information that appears to have been at least equal in spirit to vandalism. ►BMW◄ 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now replacing the word Palestine with Palestinian territories six times is somehow akin to fighting vandalism? The wonders never cease. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: As someone decided to complain on my editor review, that rather than read clearly and discuss their concerns with me on my own Talk page, I want to clarify: some of the edits (as noted above) served to completely reverse the meaning of certain phrases. Reversion of those potentially inflammatory changes is valid, as this is, in my opinion, equal in spirit to a vandalistic act. I'm pretty sure that was obvious to most, based on the follow-up. My apologies if anyone misread. ►BMW◄ 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me which participants are on which "side" so I can comment appropriately. I never keep track so that would help. Thanks, --Tom 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Peace between all homo sapiens regardless of race or belief. ►BMW◄ 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

From one chickpea dish to another... It's all happening at Falafel now with yet another new id. Either there is an Arab version of the JIDF out there or someone is payign with sockpuppets.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 got blocked for 3RR while he was a sitting arbitrator. Admins aren't above policy either. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins are charged with upholding policies and guidelines. No person, least of all an admin, should be going around edit-warring. It's an inexcusable abuse of power, pure and simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted moves

We've just had a fresh Grawp attack - the usual MO by Hope of the Future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I've now blocked. Assistance with the cleanup is requested. Never mind, it's already been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird account. Some legitimate work in August and now typical vandalism. His sleepers are getting more complex it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General questions: How many pages are moved each day? How many of the moves are by admins versus non-admins? How many of the moves are legit versus vandalism? If page-moving were made an admin-only function (or maybe an "admin and rollbacker only" function or something), what would be the impact? If all of userspace were automatically move-protected, what would be the impact? Just thinking out loud here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages that get made each day with simple mistakes in the title, such as a lowercase second word if the article is about a person, or a title that includes honorifics, etc. Maybe instead, an article autoconfirmation period; if the article exists for more than 10 days or gets edits from more than k users, it can't be moved except by an admin? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that combined with a pagemover flag--the way our rollbacker flag works. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like how image renaming permissions work, I guess. I still think the pressure of renaming new articles would require an exception, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What about a page-move speed limit? There should be little need for most users to move more than one page on any given day, so we could require at least a few hours' delay between moves. There could be a pagemover flag to remove the speed limit. --Amble (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as outlined it would prevent fixing a move that gets screwed up, but with a small tweak… Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a rate limit. One every few hours would be daftly restrictive, though -- Gurch (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the current rate limit? It must be rather generous, since Hope of the Future was able to move six pages in one minute. I think most ordinary editors (like me) rarely move pages, and wouldn't mind a limit of one move per few hours, but would be annoyed by having to go through an extra approval process to move pages at all. --Amble (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

8 per minute. (Administrators are, surprise surprise, exempt from this) -- Gurch (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, it scares me that you even pose such a question -- Gurch (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? BLP-outrageous pagemove vandalism that winds up in permanent logs has become a serious problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the answer to that would be turning on the single-rev deletion feature that has been sitting around for a year or so, then the page move vandalism could be deleted from the history by any sysop without straining the servers. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a link to any prior discussion of this. Also, does it cover logged items as opposed to revisions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See m:Revising_history#Looking_forward, it would easily cover the page moves since those are in the article history and based on my understanding of the software, could be applied to any log entry type based on setting (delete, block, userright, etc). It is already turned on at test-wiki for the basic model and appears highly configurable. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also see this as further evidence that WP:Abuse filter should be pushed with a little more urgency. Although the single rev deletion option would be nice. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP's original concern... it raises questions about who or what Grawp is. I have long held the personal belief that Grawp is not a single individual, but likely a group of people who may or may not even know who the original Grawp was. By using a combination of compromised accounts, and spreading the faith /b/ style, any number of people who just want to goof on wikipedia can do so by being Grawp. The Grawp attacks may have become something of a meme rather than a single disruptive person; anyone old enough to remember the "Meow Wars" that nearly brought down the Usenet in the early 1990's will understand how a diffuse group of unrelated troublemakers can be both very specific in the nature of their attack while still being completely uncoordinated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Moulton again is after me

Resolved

This time on Wikipedia:Editor review/Rootology. I don't know if we can do anything beyond an extreme thing like a range block, but that would be overkill. Would someone mind semi-protecting that page to keep him off it? He's indefinitely banned here, on Meta, on Wikiversity, and from WMF IRC channels for repeatedly harassing, trolling, and outing people. His IPs today are listed here. rootology (C)(T) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocking I'm told would take out a quarter of Boston - which I am not opposed to, but I hate Massachusetts and all it stands for. IPs blocked.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've sprotected the page. I agree on the blocks - there isn't anything to do other than deprive a ton of innocent Verizon users of access. --B (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And what do you have against Massachusetts, Tznkai? :P SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what his damage with you all is, but having grown up just south of there, I have a problem with your accents. Oh, and your speed traps, but your evil pales in comparison to the living hell that is I-95 in Rhode Island. rootology (C)(T) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts competes with Maryland for worst possible drivers fer starters.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Most of the nation think driving is a non contact sport. Massachusetts drivers know it's a contact sport. Boston drivers know the real truth. It's a combat sport. (Anyway, enough off-topic drivel) :D SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you driven on Pennsylvania roads recently? I95 through PA is like competing on The Running Man. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like their fireworks laws. :) Protonk (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More Moulton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.163.98.159 rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user returns as IP

Blocked user Fnr Kllrb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned as User:85.104.174.67 to continue edit-waring at Azerbaijani people and Chuvash people. A quick look at the history of the latter article will make the connection between the two plain. Could some one please give him a timeout. Aramgar (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Chuvash people. Edit history shows that this is not the only POV-warring IP who keeps on reverting there. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnr Kllrb. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IP threat

Resolved

 – Prompt action has managed any issues.

Threat from school IP; reported to administrative and technical contacts for school. Reported here to document fact of report. Kablammo (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours due to recency of the edit. Good work on your efforts to report this. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm the school knows of this vs an email sent to an address which might never be checked? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if you can't find an administrative telephone number, ring one of these and ask for one. — neuro^(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I called and spoke to Mike, their IT guy. He says he will be contacting authorities and taking the appropriate steps. Case closed. Bstone (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call and response. Thanks all! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads by Kourosh ziabari

Just came across Kourosh ziabari (talk · contribs), who has uploaded a large number of photographs, most or all of which seem to be copyvios. I identified sources for three of them and speedied those; I think it is safe to assume all the others are copyvios of the same type (widely different sizes, web resolution, heterogeneous or missing camera data, all the usual signs). Could somebody help deleting? It's a bunch, and it's late here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No way an image like Image:Iran-cement.jpg is not a copyvio. What did he do, rent a helicopter to make the photography so he could upload it for free to wikipedia? As for web resolution, EXIF info says that Image:Rasht-square.jpg was originally 2304x1728 image, why on hell has he uploaded a 288x216 version? If he is the real photographer, then he has to be told that Real Photographers™ upload to Commons, and they do it on full resolution. He needs to provide higher resolutions and desist from using Photoshop to reduce photographies to smallish proportions. The thumbnailing work is already done by the wikimedia software. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet no one has done anything about it as of yet. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rasht-museum.gif is copyvio from [22] (it's a cropped version). Nothing else to say here. Please speedy delete also the rest of his images as blatant copyvio, as they share the same characteristics mentioned by FutPerf:

• Image:Local-dress-rasht.jpg,
• Image:Guilan-univ.jpg,
• Image:Rasht-bazaar.jpg,
• Image:Tehran-nightview.jpg,
• Image:Mirza-1.jpg
• Image:Mirza-shahrdari.jpg,
• Image:Kolah-farangi.jpg,
• Image:Sheevan.jpg,
• Image:Rasht-airport.jpg, (very obvious)
• Image:Shahrdaari.jpg
• Image:Sardar-jangal-stadium.jpg
• Image:Kadus-hotel.jpg
• Image:Anzali-darya.JPEG
• Image:Masouleh-4.JPEG
• Image:Guilan-flowers.JPEG
• Image:Rasht-villages.JPEG
• Image:Guilan-women.JPEG
• Image:Hamed-Haddadi.JPEG
• Image:Samad-Nik.JPEG
• Image:Rasht-01.png

and give him a Formal Warning™ about ever uploading again any low-res photo from a website. He's welcome to re-upload photos at full resolution directly from digital camera. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Ottava Rima

Resolved

 – User warned; Roux warned to disengage. seicer | talk | contribs 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I am currently being harassed on my talk page by Ottava Rima for my vote on Jayvdb's ArbCom candidacy.[23], [24], [25]. He was told by WilyD here to stop throwing accusations and hassling me, he was told by me here that further harassment would result in a report and (hopefully) block for harassment, and he continued his harassment [26], as well as having a go at WilyD [27].

Darth Panda took it upon himself to comment on Ottava's talkpage[28], and Ottava responded[29] calling me "hypocritical and unethical."

Ottava has also taken it upon himself to badger Ryan Postlethwaite [30] and Sumoeagle179 [31] for the same reasons.

I would like some admins to look at this, because I am at the end of my patience. // roux   editor review 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A few things. 1. This user placed an incivil accusation saying that someone on the ArbCom has no right to oppose others. 2. This user acted highly incivil, cussed, personally attacked me, and the rest. 3. He never looked at what I said, nor did he bother to understand why I said it. 4. His claims of "harassment" are only further indicative of his inappropriate behavior. You cannot post a response and claim that you don't have to listen to a further response unless there is an apology, especially after you cuss the person out. That violates Civility and is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, about characterization. Roux completely mischaracterizes me. Example? Look at the diff at Darth's page. I said what Roux says is hypocritical and unethical. I did not say he was. There is a clear and strong difference between the two, and I feel that the major problem is that the above user is not recognizing such differences. This is probably the source of incivility that is rampant in his responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear God in heaven. How about you try some honesty, ok?

1. Please show me where I said that Jayvdb has no right to oppose other candidates. Oh, right.. you can't, because I never said it. I said that I found the oppose distasteful.
2. Please show me where I attacked you. Oh right.. you can't, because I didn't.
3. Please show me where I didn't understand what you said. Oh right.. you can't, because I responded quite clearly to what you said, and showed you why you weren't understanding what I said.
4. I shan't even dignify that one with a response. // roux   editor review 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, now I am a liar. Okay. Lets see. I am a liar because 1) "Please show me where I said that Jayvdb has no right to oppose other candidates. Oh, right.. you can't, because I never said it." Yet he said: "distasteful" and "distasteful". So, people have the right to be distasteful? If he has the right, then there should be no punishment. So why the oppose? It is clear that you oppose him because you think his action was wrong, which means that you think that he shouldn't have done his action. Thus, no right.

"Please show me where I attacked you. Oh right.. you can't, because I didn't." Besides calling me a liar above, which is an attack, you have said: "Boo hoo" which is clearly taunting and mocking, in addition to the claims of false accusation, which are clearly not the case especially when I questioned you, not accused you.

"Please show me where I didn't understand what you said." "mistaken me" claims, saying that I am talking about someone else, when I was clearly and directly talking about you.

So, am I still a liar? Because the diffs seem to suggest otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course he has the right to be distasteful. As I have the right to oppose him for it. You didn't question me, you attacked me--and at least three other users have agreed, including one who doesn't much like me at all. That should give you a clue. As for the "mistaken me"--you said I was voting against opponents. I'm not in the running for arbcom, which means I can't have opponents, which means yeah--you're wrong, now apologise for harassing me and two other users. For God's sake, this is so unbelievably stupid it hurts. All you're doing is baiting and attacking me for no reason whatsoever. LEAVE. ME. ALONE. I would have thought that informing you that I would report you to ANI if you continued your harassment would be enough of a clue. Apparently it wasn't, because you continued harassing me here. Admins, please block him, as it is clear he has absolutely no interest in stopping his behaviour. // roux   editor review 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets get this straight. He has the right to oppose others. You have the right to oppose based on others. I don't have the right to point out that you are opposing based on a hypocritical standard? So you are saying that I don't get to voice my opinion in addition to punishing him for voicing his? Then you say that I have to leave you alone while you created a page on AN/I which would only force me to have further contact with you? Please, explain the logic in all of this. And why block me? I'm not the one cussing. I'm not the one using all caps. I'm not cussing, acting irrational, or the rest. I am a content contributor, and I have been working on a lot of content. I really don't understand how you can demand that I get blocked, especially when you previous demanded me to apologize while cussing and attacking me viciously. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your strawmen are becoming tedious. I said you can't attack or badger me. I never said you are not entitled to your opinion. Now, kindly, leave me the hell alone. Admins, seriously. Make him stop. // roux   editor review 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I bother you so much, why do you keep responding? Why do you have such comments in your edit summaries? Why try to provoke me? Why even start this page? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Me.. provoke.. you? Are you on crack? Seriously? You showed up at my talk page and started hurling accusations and attacks at me for no reason whatsoever. I explained calmly why I did what I did. You kept attacking and accusing. I stayed calm. You kept attacking and accusing. WilyD told you to stop. I informed you--and yes, by this point I was somewhat upset--that you would be reported for harassment if you continued. You continued. I have not provoked you. You, on the other hand, have attacked me for no freaking reason whatsoever... but somehow it's all my fault? I really seriously ask: are you inebriated in some way? Your statements bear no relation whatsoever to reality. // roux   editor review 01:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, it's sort of bad form to have a go at people over how they vote in the arb elections and how they explain their vote. Maybe ask someone once about it or put it on the talk page of the votes page, then leave it at that. To do otherwise I personally would find intimidating/annoying (I suppose it's ok if people haven't understood why I said what I said and ask me, but that's that.) Otherwise, just let people vote. Sticky Parkin 01:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not equally bad form to do the same thing on a voting page, and opposing them because of their vote? :) Mine is a simple discussion, the other is something that damages someone's future. Which is worse? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm pretty sure "I really hope that you don't ever run for any other position" isn't simple discussion. This is all stemming from one huge misunderstanding, which I'm trying at the moment to fix, but if you two could stay off of each other's throats for a bit, we may be able to work this out without anybody having to leave in a body bag... DARTH PANDA^duel 01:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Darth, if he put up such a standard, and then he ran for an office and opposed, then it would be important to bring up his views. There is no misunderstanding. He opposed because a person opposed others. He put up a double standard. He started cussing and berating me because of the double standard was pointed out. I think this is all rather silly, and I stated before that he doesn't have to respond to me. A user who demands blocks, cusses, and acts that way, especially when all I did was point out a double standard is rather confusing to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While I cannot possibly condone Roux's cussing (in fact, I'm quite appalled by it), it is not without reason. There is no double standard here. Again, his issue is with how ethical your candidate is being, not with the fact that your candidate opposed. If Roux was running and he opposed, there certainly would be a double standard, but this is not the case. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←Unfortunately this is what I have come to expect of Ottava Rima, and more times than not find him to communicate in a uncivil manner. While I feel that this specific issue is stemming from a larger one, it could defiantly just be resolved by both parties leaving each other alone for a little while. Tiptoety ^talk 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't cuss. I don't make fun of people. I don't taunt. So, the uncivil part doesn't add up. Thats why people say "tendentious" instead. Its far more vague and can mean just about anything you want. I get burned on content disputes, not for civility. :) Plus, you can see the accusations and the cussing from the user above. That is quite different than anything I ever write. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider such edits as this a bit uncivil. Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jokes are now incivility, even when I didn't actually attack you? Please, do tell. This would be interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Harassment? Where? --Caspian blue 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux believes that it is a bad idea of standing candidates to oppose anyone. Therefore, Roux opposes. Roux is not a standing candidate. Roux has the right to oppose whomever he wants, for whatever he wants. End of story. The reason Roux is so annoyed, is because you have kept hounding him, essentially demanding that he explain his vote, which he doesn't have to. Please, just drop the matter. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• cough* the topic is if I harassed someone. Its not if Roux was correct or not. :) I didn't demand him to explain his vote. That would be silly. I just posted on his talk page. He responded. If Roux has the right to oppose whoever he wants, then I have the right to question who I want. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"I have the right to question who I want" is only correct if you are being civil, which you have not been. — neuro^(talk) 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "civil" seems to be quite different than WP:CIVIL or any standard use of the term. Perhaps this is a neologism. Either way, it really seems inappropriate. I mean, if you want to see traditional incivility, I think just one example here, asking if I am on crack or drunk definitely fits the definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When is someone going to block Ottava for these attacks, accusations, and lies about what I have said and done--which he is continuing elsewhere, by the way, on User talk:Darth Panda, don't know about anywhere else--which he has shown no interest in stopping? // roux   editor review 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm highly sensitive at incivility, but don't see anything to warrant a block to him. The "conversation" is a bit uncivil, but a mere expression about your vote. IMO, there was no harassment.--Caspian blue 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Without going into who is in the wrong here, (which is what Darth Panda is getting to right now), may I suggest that both of you disengage from the other, at least for the time being? It's not doing either of you any good right now. SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I want him blocked. All I know is some guy shows up on my talkpage out of nowhere, attacking me and accusing me. And keeps doing so after being told not to. And keeps up with the lies on other pages. I'm supposed to take that lying down? Hell no. He's wrong, he came out of nowhere to badger me (and Ryan Postlethwaite, and Sumoeagle). He needs a block, because he won't stop. // roux   editor review 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, what? I'm not accusing anybody of being wrong here... I'm not even sure I agree with Roux's claims that the candidate's actions are unethical. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, saw it was being discussed there :) But seriously, roux, Ottava, both of you really need to disengage from the other, it's only feeding the conflict and heightening it on both sides. SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Wrong. He needs to disengage from me. He needs to apologise for his attacks and lies about me and what I've said. He needs a timeout from Wikipedia for harassment and gross violations of WP:CIVIL. He showed up out of nowhere to attack me. I am sick and tired of being treated as if I've done anything wrong here. We should not be treated equally, because I have done nothing wrong. // roux   editor review 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, it takes two to tango. While Ottava started the conversation, you could have completely ignored him. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to let someone attack me with impunity, sorry. I'm funny that way. Nor am I going to take it very well when people blame me for being attacked. Blaming the victim is ridiculous. // roux   editor review 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't blatantly attack you to begin with, and nobody is blaming you. Roux, it may be best if you take a breather. I'd let other users handle it at this point, as all you are doing is hurting your own standing by cussing and accusing him of being on drugs. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, actually, and treating me the same as him--"you both need to disengage"--is blaming me. He attacked me out of nowhere, he is spreading lies about what I said, he is the one in need of corrective action. I am so sick of this crap. // roux   editor review 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Those who kill in self defense are still subject to a manslaughter charge. While I don't agree with the view that we should simply let the law handle everything (as they largely ignore our plights anyways), that's the theory we're all going for here. We're not blaming you. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This can, and should, end now.

Roux, you are entitled to vote according to your values, and you've done so. You're entitled to report incivility and harassment, and you've done so, but you have also been incivil yourself, albeit after provocation. There's no need for you to post further on the subject, and I think it would be in your best interest not to.

Ottava, you are entitled to ask questions on a user's Talk page, and you have done so, but you began by being provocative, responded to a polite reply by being incivil, and continued this until you provoked an incivil response in turn. There is no need for you to post further on the subject, and if you do, I may well block you for harassment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying he won't be blocked now? He's been continuing his lies and harassment at User talk:Darth Panda. This is ridiculous. I would have been blocked hours ago for pulling half of what he just pulled. If I'd shown up on some random person's talkpage to attack them--and continue attacking them after being told not to--I would have been given the boot in a heartbeat. Any good reason why he hasn't been? // roux   editor review 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've warned OttavaRima. The disruption will stop now, I think, so there will be no need for a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you spoke too soon! // roux   editor review 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Acutally I'm interpreting the item below (which appeared at the same time as my post above) as directed at me. So far, I have a poem, an email, and a post on my talk page. Hint: Swiss or Belgian choclates are best. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory poem for this AN/I:

Oh muse, oblige me when you may

A rhyme, such a thing I do need

Now, more than anything this day;

Of course I say this, with such speed

That can make heads spin, but please say

The words, the tune, and do the deed.

But alas, she will not tonight.

Wherefore now, this will surely bite.

I admit, I have nothing. The muse has failed me tonight. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. Ottava was warned by WilyD here to stop throwing accusations and hassling me. He kept doing so. This issue is not over. // roux   editor review 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, please. You're not doing any good here. Please let it go (and while you're at it, remove the inflammatory message on your user talk, please?) Take a break, get some air, cool off? Ottava has been warned, and that's the end of it, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, that's not the end of it. He was warned. He kept behaving the same way.. so he gets... another warning? He wouldn't stop his behaviour, he didn't stop after being told several times to stop. But, typically, he gets away with it. No consequences--he gets to spread lies about me and what I've said, and then go on to pretend as though he did nothing wrong. And he gets away with it. Me, I get told off. Oh well. Typical Wikipedia. Treat the victim as though they were just as bad. Makes tons of sense, really--if you alienate everyone equally, then everyone's equal, right? Explain to me why nothing was done after he'd already been warned. We all know I would have been blocked had I carried on the way he did. // roux   editor review 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, you are only tainting your cause here. Enough is enough. You have been told by close to 8 editors to give it a rest, and personally if I was in your shoes I would listen to them. Please, I am asking you, give it a rest. Tiptoety ^talk 04:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of 'no' don't you people understand? Some jerk shows up out of nowhere, starts attacking me, is told by an admin and then me to stop, keeps doing it, keeps doing it, keeps doing it, spreads his lies to at least two other talkpages, keeps doing it.. and all he gets is a warning? Are you serious? Can you honestly say that if I had done what he did I wouldn't be blocked? Of course not. So he gets away with it because...? // roux   editor review 04:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, I'm sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were possible to believe that was sincere, I would. It's not; I don't. You persisted in your harassment long after being told not to. Clearly you don't mean a word of what you just said. // roux   editor review 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not closed. Still waiting for someone to explain why not a single thing was done about his harassment after he was told to stop by an admin. We all know I would have been blocked on the spot. // roux   editor review 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What would you have us do? We have no powers or authority to punish; a block would protect nobody; you've had an apology (3 up). That to me sounds like it's over. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That apology is worthless, we all know that. I want an explanation as to why he wasn't blocked after being told repeatedly to stop his actions when he just kept on going. I would have been blocked on sight had I shown up on someone's talkpage to attack someone for their vote. I notice it's also been completely ignored that he's badgered two other editors, he kept his attacks and lies up on at least four other talkpages that I've seen... seriously, if I'd done half of what he did, I'd have been blocked. If I'd kept going after being warned by an admin, I'd have been blocked.. but he kept going without impunity and without any sort of consequence. Oh yeah, he made a self-serving apology... not good enough. If he apologises individually and specifically for every single lie and every single attack he made on me, it might be worth something. I won't be holding my breath.

I know, I really should make sure he approves of all my votes at ACE. Clearly my own opinion isn't allowed--I was attacked for it, and he was allowed to keep attacking me for it. Obviously that means I'm not permitted to have my own opinion. I'll also make sure in future that everything I post is vetted by Ottava first, to make sure it accords with his notions of what I'm allowed to think.

Speaking of which, isn't he under mentoring right now? A quick look at his mentoring guidelines shows that.. oh dear, he failed every single one of them. So.. given that it's well-known that he behaves like this, he wasn't given a timeout because why? // roux   editor review 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not issued as punishment. Stop asking for them to be. WilyD 12:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I'm well aware that people are allowed to harass me with virtual impunity. What I want to know is why. You told him to stop, he kept going. I told him to stop, he kept going. Franamax told him to stop, he kept going. He was explicitly warned by SheffieldSteel, he kept going. He wasn't blocked because? He has a history of attacking and harassing people, he's under mentoring... so he wasn't blocked why? We all know I would have been. // roux   editor review 12:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, drop it. Plenty of other editors saw this section, many of us watch AN/I. Many who already know how Ottava can act have seen this, and understand it fully. Others will have had their opinions changed, especially since he's harassing you over your vote, which is bad form, if it's not incivility. However, we're also getting an opinion of you, one which is getting worse. Eventually, Ottava's going to foul up big time, and there will be a community ban discussion. Those who've seen this will remember it, and things will be resolved further. In the meantime, let it go, and keep in mind OR will get what's coming if the behavior doesn't change. But don't keep cutting off your own nose, it distracts from OR's behaviors. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but it still doesn't answer the question. In fact, it makes the question that much more pointed: if it's known that he acts this way, why wasn't he blocked after numerous warnings and requests to stop? // roux   editor review 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Because this particular incident, by consensus, didn't rise to the level requiring a block. It's that simple! Look, life isn't fair, buy a fucking helmet. Move on, go back to editing. There's nothing more to be done here. Just wait for the next time OR goes after someone, it's a pattern, will happen again, and you can link to this in the archives, and help build a case. If you keep dragging this on, though, I'll be there supporting a block on you for disruption. Note my sentiment, and Hesperian's similar attitude below, and realize that now you look worse than OR. ThuranX (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia. Someone shows up out of nowhere to attack and harass me and refuses to stop given multiple warnings. I try to get an explanation for why, especially given his history, he doesn't actually get blocked... and I get the standard handwavy "nothing to see here, folks, wait until he does it again" response and get threatened with blocking. Can't you people see what's wrong with this situation? The guy is known for harassing people, he's under mentorship (and has a whole list of guidelines he's supposed to follow, every one of which he broke here)... and I'm threatened with a block for being upset. Huh. Do you truly not understand why this is a problem? There's no point in warning him for his attacks and harassment if there's no follow-through; he was explicitly warned to stop by SheffieldSteel and he kept going. Why was he not blocked? // roux   editor review 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and blocking me? Proof that I'm held to a different standard of behaviour than he is. He wasn't blocked for his harassment and disruption after being warned and continuing, why should I be? // roux   editor review 13:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava stridently asked Roux the same question over and over and over again, even after Roux had repeatedly asked Ottava to drop it. Roux calls that harassment warranting a block. Now Roux is asking us all the same question over and over and over again, even after we have repeated asked him to drop it. What's that called, Roux? Hesperian 12:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. He was attacking me. I deserve an explanation as to why he wasn't blocked. There's a huge difference, but thanks for reinforcing the already-obvious concept that people can attack me with impunity. // roux   editor review 12:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. You and Ottava have both gotten upset at someone, both demanded an explanation, both not received an explanation that is satisfactory to you, both refused to let it go, both carried on like a pork chop. The only "huge difference" is that you see yourself as driven to behave this way by external circumstances, whereas you see Ottava as behaving this way because he is an arsehole. Go read actor-observer bias. Hesperian 13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks yourself, mate. Did you actually look at the history? OR showed up out of nowhere to attack and harass me. Demanding an explanation for why policy hasn't been enforced for his attacks and harassment is a little different than him demanding explanations for why I voted as I did. Explanations that I provided to him, by the way--and he kept attacking, kept spreading lies about me, after he was warned to stop. Whatever. You people have very clearly shown me on more than one occasion that people can attack me without any consequences, and I'm not allowed to get upset in response. Love the double standard. I'll bear this in mind the next time I disagree with someone. Obviously I'll be allowed to harass them on their talkpage, right? Ottava's allowed to without any consequences. I expect I'll be treated the same way. Not. // roux   editor review 13:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

While Ottava has been warned about the provocative comments and etc. and has been appropriately warned -- and has given an apology above, Roux's reply has been rather incivil and discouraging. It takes two to tango Roux, and your constant badgering and throwing of ill around has gotten tiresome. I highly suggest that you disengage from this thread and from Ottava, much like Ottava will do (unless he is asking for a block), because continuing down this road after multiple administrators have told you to disengage is only asking for possible sanctions. You've gotten your apology, you've gotten your warning against Ottava, and no administrator is willing to block Ottava for the comments. There is nothing else we are willing or can do in this situation. seicer | talk | contribs 13:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The apology was worthless. He continued his harassment after being warned. Why does he get away with harassment and attacks after being told to stop? If he wasn't blocked, I shouldn't be. // roux   editor review 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to go is to assume good faith in regards to Ottava's apology, and leave each other alone? If you're not willing to accept an apology, then there's really nothing to be gained in continuing the discussion. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava has stopped now, so there's no cause to block him. You have not stopped now, so there may be cause to block you if you don't give it up. Everyone is consulling you to avoid that path. Wikipedia admins are born of the tree of umpteenth chances - we give people many chances to reform their behaviour - but those run out eventually. WilyD 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my adding, WP:AGF is ok as it goes for now, but a block would be preventative, not punitive, if this happens again, as it will stop temporarily and hopefully deter, OR from doing it. Sticky Parkin 13:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Couldnt think where to put this so ...

My concern regards Henry VIII and the common misconception that he was married six times. However, according to the book of general ignorance, when asked "How many wives did Henry VIII have" they have to say:

We make it two. Or four, if your a Catholic. Henry's fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled. This is very different from divorce. Legally, it means the marriage never took place. There were two grounds for the annulment. Anne and Henry never consummated their marriage; that is, they never had intercourse. Refusal or inability to consummate is still grounds for an annulment today. In addition, Anne was already betrothed to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine when she married Henry. At that time, the formal act of betrothal was a legal bar to marrying someone else. All parties agreed no legal marriage had taken place. So that leaves five. The Pope declared Henry's second marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegal, because the king was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry, as head of the new Church of England, declared in turn that his first marriage was invalid on the legal ground that a man could not sleep with his brothers widow. The King cited the Old Testament, which he claimed as 'God's law', whether the Pope liked it or not. Depending on whether you believe the pope or the king that brings it down to either three or four marriages. Henry anulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn just before he had her executed for adultery. This was somewhat illogical: if the marriage had never existed, Anne could hardly be accused of betraying it. He did the same with his fifth wife, Catherine Howard. All the evidence suggests she unfaithful to him before and during their marriage. This time, Henry passed a special act making it treasonable for a queen to commit adultery. Once again, he also had the marriage. So that makes four annulments, and only two incontestably legal marriages.

I have referred to the relevant talk page but nobody appears to be taking me seriously so I thought I'd come here and ask for guidance. One person said that it would confuse people letting them know that he only had 2 or 4 wives, however as wiki is an encyclopedia I thought the truth was more important. Evidently the people who work on the article disagree --Thanks, Hadseys 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got a question. He married (verb) six times, right? He was only legally married (noun) twice though. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a good thing to have in the body text (in full), but it seems like a perfect candidate for explanatory notes. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how to do that could somebody help --Thanks, Hadseys 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• sure thing. Firs things first, make sure that you rewrite this aside in a less meandering fashion. Present it factually and clearly. Make sure that sourcing (specific to Henry VIII) exists and can be cited on this exact subject. Then you can follow the instructions in the link I gave you above. You make a separate section for the explanatory notes (distinct from the references), place a named references tag below<references group="your name here" /> then tag your "note" in a manner similar to how you would tag a normal reference: <ref group="your name here">...note goes here</ref>. If you are worried about messing it up, try it out on a sandbox or your userpage first. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and in the future questions like this can go to the Wikipedia:Help desk. They should be able to answer them pretty well. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry married 6 times and used whatever means he could think of to shed 5 of them. The 6th outlived him. Using that one author's opinion as to whether he was actually married 6 times or not, could be worth a sentence or two, but Henry did exactly what he wanted. Maybe we should also cite Richard Armour or Will Cuppy, whichever it was, who pointed out that while Henry had a couple of his wives executed, he let the others live, because "it was the age of chivalry, when knighthood was in flower." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Dangers of Wikipedia and Facebook, in regards to WP:OUTING

I recently requested oversight, as an IP has left a note on my editor review(which I have deleted all links to, as it should have been archived, but even more so because of concern that I have regarding the matter I am posting about) which is in regards to my FaceBook account. The message was detailed enough in my opinion that it warrants extreme concern. I do not know how this IP found my facebook account, but he/her did, and that means that many other editors are in danger of being outed by malicious and obsessive vandals.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this an incident that administrators should be notified about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a largely unavoidable problem (Assuming that both the facebook page and your habits here remain unchanged). The researchers working with the Netflix Prize discovered that individuals could reliably be identified from aggregate data due to idiosyncrasies in preferences. In other words, a lot of people liked Titanic, but not a lot of people liked both King of Hearts and Hot Fuzz. If you have sufficient identifying information on your facebook page that can be linked to your userpage or your editing habits, google can do the rest. My general suggestion is not to overshare, but I know that doesn't help you in your specific position. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how this user found my facebook account, as I have no information on either pertaining to either.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either. Barring a name or college being dropped, what I listed was where I would start if I was looking. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what is probably your facebook after about 5 seconds of googling. John Reaves 08:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But there are probably a good number of people with the last name "daedalus" so it may or may not be his. The IP might have just gotten lucky with their guess. In any event, incidents like these are bound to happen, even with measures taken, and can only really be dealt with when they come around (and dealt with ASAP). Master&Expert (Talk) 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, awhile back, and by awhile, I mean a few hours ago, I got a confirmation from oversight that the offending diff has been deleted. As to google, I tried that, and it turned up no links to facebook that could be used to find my profile, so I'm at a loss as to how it did.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I mailed you a few minutes after you posted this, when I saw it here on ANI, via your WP account. The problem is that using the fairly unique username here, if it is tied to you "IRL" elsewhere with information you revealed, is a give-away and a half. Like mentioned above it's easy to find with <1 minute of Google, Yahoo, or whatever else. It's not a WP security issue specifically, unfortunately; it's a case of having given away a lot of personal info tied to a unique phrase that isn't shared by others in public. :( rootology (C)(T) 14:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Breaks cover) The following has been posted elsewhere Someone ought to also tell Daedalus that he meant "born yesterday," not "borne yesterday" in his Wiki post. Also that when you respond to a private email threatening to "make a note of it," (LOL) it also has that unfortunate by-product of revealing your email and name when you send it. For certain reasons I can't post the link to this elsewhere though other readers will be able to confirm its existence.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Emailing using the wiki system does reveal the email you've specified. Make an email account you can use specially for wiki, such as a hotmail etc, if you don't use it on other sites it's not as easy for people to find you by googling the email. Don't use the default (or what were the default) privacy settings on facebook! Change it so only your friends can view it. That's how most people have it nowadays. Then don't friend people you don't know well and trust not to be likely to fall out with you.:) That way outsiders can see hardly any of your info or even see who you have friended on there.. Sticky Parkin 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just, like, get over it. I use my real name here. I can be e-researched in excruciating detail. Life goes on. I say that as a long-term professional online privacy activist. If you are super-squeamish about your identity, then hide it better. If you are simply protective of your secrets, keep offline those things you are not comfortable with being public. If you don't care about privacy at all, just don't be dirt-stupid and enable identity thieves and blackmailers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Says it all really. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people genuinely don't realise stuff like how much can be googled from their email addy or whatever or that it's shown by the WP email system. That's not necessarily their fault- no-one knows everything. Then it's just a matter of making sure it doesn't matter again, if you're concerned. I imagine it's a bit creepy for an IP to say they know stuff about you you didn't think was common knowledge or realise was as discoverable as that. A lot of people aren't so concerned about privacy issues unless or until they have some sort of intimidation or attempt to creep you out through it. Unless you have experienced it you can't really know what it's like- it's a shock more than anything. I suppose whether you experience it or not depends on whether you have the bad luck to annoy the wrong person. Sticky Parkin 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

After a pair of "learning experiences", I just decided to just use my real name on the internet. After all, anyone willing to hurt you will eventually find your real name with relative ease whether you like or not, and it's not much of a protection in case of a lawsuit. On hindsight, I should have chosen a cool pseudonym for wikipedia and then made clear who is the real person behind it, as its identity would have been discovered anyways and then I would have been accused of hiding stuff or something. Of course, I reserve the right to use un-associated aliases for fun-related stuff that I don't want or need to see associated to my name like characters on online games :3 , but for serious stuff I simply use my real name. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal mutterings on Saatchi Gallery again

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive485 § Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive491 § The return of User:Infoart

It seems that User:Infoart, the gallery's mouthpiece is back again attempting to wield a stick. There's a history of this; but this time it's over the articles over the Danovo court case. This time he's been editing [32] [33], with no proper citations to say the liqudation was cancelled and asking that "you would like to put your name and email here so that the Saatchi Gallery’s legal representatives can contact you and clarify your ‘confusion’." This really is becoming tedious, although somewhat amusing considering Infoart has uploaded images of pictures releasing them under the GFDL, something which, to me, is unlikely as I believe it's not just the gallery's permission that is needed but that of the artist (and he continues to avoid talk page discussions asking for clarity). He ignores his talk page, instead preferring to reinstate edits and then complain on the article talk page. And then there's the obvious COI concerns as ever. Now I'm not sure a case number is proper citation; others may disagree, I know there are a few of us who don't view InfoArt as a good faith editor, however the legal mummerings that he keeps throwing out beg for action. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time this popped up, (I'm too lazy to look in the archives), I said that I was tired of this and proposed an indef block. How bout it? Haven't we put up with this for long enough? Does anybody really oppose a block because this editor is continually trying the patience of the community and trying to instigate a hostile editing environment. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have the day off so I spent the last couple hours slogging through the mess. After going over a couple years worth of contentious edits, legal threats, utter misunderstanding of the role and purpose of an encyclopedia, and an attitude of blatant disregard towards policies and guidelines, consensus, and his fellow editors; I have to conclude that there is no longer a place for User:Infoart at Wikipedia. Accordingly, I also endorse an indefinite block of said user. L0b0t (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention their attempts in the article...since there is a reliable source...[34] --Smashville^talk 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably best not to do that. I don't think we have absolute proof that he is the authorised mouthpiece of the gallery, although it is hard to see any other possibility as very likely. If he were posting in an unofficial capacity then surely the gallery would have dealt with him severely by now. As it is, he is bringing the gallery into disrepute by behaving so badly.

Anyway, the last discussion was archived from here without reaching a conclusion but I think we were heading towards a consensus for a block. Personally, I think a block is justified. This guy has had plenty of chances to behave and has not taken them. Last time, I suggested that maybe he should be blocked from articles but allowed on talk pages. Given that his actions on talk pages have become disruptive and detrimental to the work of improving the articles, I no longer believe this. I think a complete block is the best option.

I also think it would be sensible to delete all the images he uploaded which have questionable licensing, even though some are quite useful. If the gallery wants to release content under the GFDL they need to do it in a way that leaves no doubt that it really is them who are doing it and that they are in a position to do so.

--DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What Daniel said. Ban Infoart. Delete the pictures of questionable GFDL. Single mention of dispute in the Guardian is not enough reason to mention it in the article in question (if it were that sort of short mention of a dispute the Gallery had with some other organization we would likely not mention. We shouldn't treat Wikipedia any differently) . JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked Infoart for disruptive editing including legal threats. Considering all that has gone before on ANI and at Talk:Saatchi Gallery I could think of no better duration than indefinite. While I note that consensus seems to be moving towards supporting a ban, my only concern is to prevent disruption at the article itself, and I'm not opposed to an unblock in principle, if this editor (or editors, if it is a group account) shows signs of appreciating that there are limits to the conduct that we will tolerate here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

good call. FWIW, among their threats was that they would remove Saatchi-related content, which are presumably the images referred to above that they attempted to license. So they seem to have accomplished that. DGG (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tavix

Many editors have tried to reason with this user – Tavix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – for almost a year, about his incessant editwarring pagemoves that are consistently against the naming conventions, especially WP:NCP. His talk page (or its history - he has a habit of deleting, not archiving, his talk page, so it may take some doing to see all of it) illustrates the problem well enough, and the last (as of this writing) item at the end of my own also touches on the issue. The user has been warned many times with uw-series templates or customized equivalents, and in simple non-uw personal messages, about this issue. He just will not stop making excessively disambiguatory and reader-confusing page moves. Cf. WP:DAB and WP:NCP: Disambiguated article names should use the least specific/nitpicky level of disambiguatory detail as possible, and for people should describe the person ("chemist") not the field/area/subject associated with the person ("chemistry"). Tavix has openly declared that he will not stop unless he is "banned" [35]. I say, "be careful what you wish for". See also Tavix's statement at User talk:Tavix#POINT: "I like being controversial myself and have a good time with it." This is all a fun game to him. And see also below that talk page post, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL warnings.

I also have to point out that Tavix is using his userpage to push particularly aggressive religious messages, in contravention of WP:USERPAGE, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLE.

While the user has made constructive edits, including creation of useful articles (arguably; I have my doubts about at least one of them, on "missing" parts of the Bible), I very strongly suspect that this PoV-pushing article-moves behavior will resume not long after the block is lifted, given the user's editing pattern, hostility, and self-declared, self-important and self-righteous recalcitrance with regard to this matter.

I also find it disturbing that a user this new (about 1 year) spends so much time at AfD, all the while pushing a particular religious point of view in both userpage and articlespace (specifically, in favor of the idea that the Bible has been censored and is Truth). A review of his last 1000 edits shows little activity other than a) arguing at AfD, b) nominating and tagging things for AfD, and c) arguing with people on their talk pages about AfD stuff, as well as, of course, d) moving pages en masse inappropriately with very few execeptions. Not very contributory I would suggest perhaps the opposite: Yes, WP needs to be cleaned up here and there on a regular basis, but a total focus on ridding the encyclopedia of things one disagrees with and pushing an agenda of renaming articles to suit personal preferences instead of site-wide agreed-upon conventions is maybe not exactly productive or helpful to the community.

NB: I have already notified Tavix about this ANI report.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the said consensus of the page naming conventions on football players? seicer | talk | contribs 15:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCP and WP:DAB, already cited. Article disambiguation is, overall, a general matter, not a specific one. While a handful of WikiProjects have argued quasi-successfully for exceptions, such a debate about football hasn't taken place, and all of the issues surrounding both over-disambiguation and user-confusing disambiguators, at both talk pages, applies as much to footballers as it does to cars, musicians, butterflies, or anything else. The gist is, there's been a consensus for years (operational, but unclearly specified until a few months ago) to use disambiguatory article names like Jane Smith (chemist) or Juan Sanchez (politician) – identificatory of the person, not the field of endeavor – not Jane Smith (chemistry) or Juan Sanchez (politics), much less Jane Smith (applied organic chemistry in Australia) or Juan Sanchez (California Republican politics), and to not get more specifically-labeling of article subjects (POV danger!) than what is minimally required to successfully disambiguate. At least 13 people have asked User:Tavix to stop ignoring these conventions, and he has stated flatly that he will not until he is banned, yet does not engage either guideline's talk page with any rationale for why he thinks the conventions should change. Textbook disruptive editing and point-making at the expense of collaboration. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I don't think there is any consensus on any of these things. When I started moving the football articles, I was following the example of many other sport related dabs. Go to any hockey player's article and you will see John Smith (ice hockey) and not John Smith (hockey player). This is the same thing, I don't see why it is such a controversy for football, when it wasn't/isn't for hockey. The offical name of the sport is "American football" as football refers to "Association football" or "Soccer" in America. I would also like to point out in WP:QUALIFIER, third paragraph, second sentence, it says the following: "However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach)." Since "American football player" is an overly-long disambiguation, why not shorten it up to "American football" like they did with the hockey articles.

I would also like to defend myself on your misrepresentation of one of my quotes: "I like being controversial myself and have a good time with it." I said this as this is the main reason I am on Wikipedia. I usually don't like doing research, but would still like to contribute to the project, so normally I patrol already existent articles and hit some of them up for deletion. Its what I have fun doing. Most things are non-controversial, but if there is a good argument, I'll like to get involved it in. I feel I had enough policy to go ahead and make the moves, so you warning against me before there is a strong consensus against it is wrong. Please remember that these are good faith moves and I'm not out to destroy Wikipedia.

One more thing, do not bring religion into this. This is about football, not about my religion. I honestly think you are trying to find everything "wrong" I did on this site in the last year or so and present it to get me banned. Please have a better sense than that. Tavix (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask that you be banned, only possibly temporarily blocked; I'm not sure you are clear on the difference. Your entire editing history here is an open record. I don't have to look very hard to find "wrong" things. You have consistently, willfully and unrepentantly ticked off over a dozen editors with your disruptive moves, and I cannot find in your page history a single voice in your defense in that regard. Don't you think that's a little curious? That you are also abusing your user page to push aggressive (to some, probably downright scary) religious messages and arguably pushing a religion point of view in articlespace is simply further evidence of your self-righteousness. It doesn't have anything to do with digging for dirt to make you look bad, it's just part of an identifiable problem editing pattern. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Tavix has openly declared that he will not stop unless he is 'banned'". Not necessarily true... Note that if you ban me, that would first require an open consensus that it is (football player) and not (American football) and that hasn't happened yet, so all of my edits are perfectly legal. Also, if we can somehow get a consensus for that (although I don't think that will happen), I will gladly stop as I do not want to violate a direct consensus, and therefore stop without being banned. Tavix (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it has already happened. It's called WP:NCP. Legality has nothing to do with any of this. An no one but you has been talking about banning. That's a completely different process, and just a pattern of making bad page moves isn't sufficient to trigger it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• The consensus is the general dab rules already quoted and explained ad nauseum to you. It's not the same as hockey, which was worked out into a separate consensus, because you are adding American to football and deleting player which is nonsensical. There is no reason to further disambiguate football when there is no other person of the same name best known for playing football and it is harmful when so many players routinely move between different codes of football, including American, Canadian, Arena, and Australian. There is no need for a special rule for football; the general dab rules work perfectly well. And, it's not just football player dab moves, there are numerous other moves only partly illustrated by the warnings and requests to stop all over User talk:Tavix and attitude summarised by SMcCandlish above. Moving the football player dabs annoys me. The attitude concerns me. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• "It's not the same as hockey, which was worked out into a separate consensus," where might that consensus be? All I'm saying is there is no consensus to have it at (football player). When I started moving moving the articles back in September, there was about 60-70% of the articles that had (American football), and since that was the majority, I decided I would go ahead and move the rest, a little at a time, to keep with consistency. These are good faith edits and I will stop if there is a consensus that tells me otherwise. That highly general "dab rule" has an exception to it, which I see that you know because you quoted it, that gives me consent to make that change. There is no direct consensus otherwise. I see no reason why all this needs to go on. Why must you constantly beat me around for trying to create consistency within Wikipedia? If you would just have left me alone with it, I bet I could have moved on to other projects by now, and both DoubleBlue and SMcCandlish could have further advanced Wikipedia instead of arguing about such a petty thing as such. This has gone on for, what, 3 months now? I'm just trying to be consistant with the dabs, and trying to get me to stop with my goal seems pretty strange to me. About how I choose to say "American", "Canadian", "Arena", ect. is just look at their professional careers and whichever one they played the longest would most easily fit as the correct dab, primarily because Eagle Day (Canadian and American football) seems way too long to be sensible, and secondly because they are notable for their professional careers, and if they played longer in one sport, it would make sense that they would be more notable in that sport (unless there are reliable sources that state otherwise) . Tavix (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Before launching into a rant like this and declaring that there is no consensus, you should probably do some basic homework, like actually reading the talk page and archives at WT:NCP, in which the hockey and baseball projects made an allegedly strong case for an exception to the people naming conventions, due to the supposedly disproportionately large number of players who become coaches or sportscasters or otherwise have multiple roles within those two respective sports. The quasi-consensus for even that level of exception is shaky, as virtually no one weighed in other than members of those two projects. Yes, there are some other inconsistencies in the application to date of disambiguated bio article names; this is not a reason to make that situation worse.

The broader issue here is that the controlling precedent is WP:DAB, of which WP:NCP's material regarding disambiguation is only a clarification. WP:DAB is really very clear that we do not excessively disambiguate; i.e., we do not use "(American football)" or "(linebacker)", as examples, without a need to disambiguate between two players of football of different sorts, or two players of different positions in American football, respectively, who have the same name. Eagle Day (football player) is the proper article title, and the present location of the article; WP:DAB and WP:NCP would not tolerate something as grotesque as Eagle Day (Canadian and American football), so that is a red herring.

No one really cares why you did what you did when you did; the vast majority of comments relating to page moves (of any kind; this is not just about sports articles) have been over a dozen other editors asking you to stop moving pages around, because you clearly do not understand the naming conventions or disambiguation guidelines. This is not about DoubleBlue and SMcCandlish picking on poor little Tavix, it's about your recalcitrance and unwillingness to engage in discussion and work toward compromise. Your pattern is to ignore move-related (and much other) criticism, and then delete it from your talk page as if it never happened.

From what I can tell so far, you have participated in precisely zero discussions at WT:DAB and WT:NCP, nor participated in any relevant discussion at WT:SPORTS or other project pages where topical article disambiguation issues might arise. "Trying to get me to stop with my goal" is really the key phrase here. There is no consensus for your goal. There is massive site-wide buy-in with regard to WP:DAB and WP:NCP, and you are ignoring them in a highly WP:POINTy manner. "I see no reason why all this needs to go on" – neither does anyone else, so the obvious solution is for you to stop being disruptive and confrontational, and instead edit collaboratively, please. A long-term pattern of edits that are self-importantly against consensus and which ignore attempts to resolve disputes are not good faith edits by any reasonable interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:POINT and WP:DE, read together, no matter what you profess.

PS: For the record, I have had no dealings of any kind with User:Tavix, that I recall, before being asked by a third party to weigh in on this matter. I have no personal bone of contention here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

National Revival of Poland article again

Resolved

Just as one disruptive editor (User:Krzyzowiec got 1 year ban, another newly created account User:Pedro Alfonso de Cule stepped in to continue his traditions - tagging article with POV template and flaming talk page with offensive slurs [36]"i think that person whose wrote this shit is probably fag and left wing shit" and his hate philosophy about who should be eliminated from society "i hate this people and i want to eliminates this type of persons form a society".M0RD00R (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd file a SSP report but I'm not sure how and I'm a bit busy, should probably be blocked for abuse anyway, and their comment removed by an admin. Verbal chat 14:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can file RFCU, but I think it is of secondary importance whether it is socking, meat-puppetry or off-wiki canvassing. Hate speeches should not be tolerated. M0RD00R (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree having read the rant in full. Indef block and something done about the IP. Verbal chat 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The edit[37] is far beyond the pale and I would have no problem with an immediate indef block. Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seramagi

Seramagi (talk · contribs) just added highly unsavoury content to the infobox of the Magibon article, as well as the unsourced real name of the subject of the article. The history of the article is rife with socks and slander (see the most recent AfD). I gave the editor an only warning but perhaps A'd a little to much GF. Eyes and banhammer-readiness requested. Skomorokh 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was a throw-away single-purpose account. Based on the large number of reverted edits [38], the lack of discussion on talk page [39], and shooing away warnings [40], WP:DUCK seems to apply. The troll that initiated the AfD exhibited similar behavior (first added insulting statements to the infobox). Pcap ping 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this recent prodding from an IP user seems eerily familiar. Pcap ping 10:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible POV tag spamming?

On 1 December Murat inserted a POV tag and a Cleanup tag into three different articles: [41] and [42] and [43].He did this without leaving the required note on their talk pages describing what he considered to be unacceptable about the articles. I removed the 6 tags, saying in the edit summary that they should have been accompanied by an explanation in the talk page detailing the alleged POV content (here is an example [44]).

Murat then complained about my removal of the tags to Nishkid64 [45] and also inserted a subsection in each article, titled "Disputed Objectivity". Into this subsection he placed identical text [46] and [47] and [48]. That text did not point out any specific examples of POV bias in the articles. The text also bore no relation to the articles subjects - for example, Justin McCarthy is a person, not a "Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history"! However, on the basis of that off-topic and copypasted text, Nishkid64 reinserted the POV tags into the three articles, saying that an "explanation had been provided" and that my edit summary was "bickering" (here is an example [49]).

In the light of Nishkid64's "bickering" comment, can I have confirmation that I was right to remove the tags the first time around because they were invalid without an accompanying talk page explanation. Secondly, what is your opinion about an editor inserting POV tags on the basis of what another editor has posted? Shouldn't the editor who places the POV tag (Nishkid64) be the one to explain why the POV tag is there? Thirdly, does that copypasted and off-topic text added by Murat constitute an acceptable explanation for inserting a POV tag? The addition by Murat of these tags and the copypasted text appears more like a case of "I don't like it", rather than a serious attempt at addressing actual POV material. Meowy 16:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You might have assumed good faith and asked him to clarify why he placed the tags if the reason was unclear prior to their removal, though his reasonings seem a bit off, probably shouldn't have been cut and paste and while appropriate to the one on the city, they should be clarified for the other two. My guess is he feels that somehow something in those articles is related to the PoV problems he sees at the city article.--Crossmr (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't POV tags have to be used with an accompanying talk page explanation? I removed the tags not because of lack of clarity over their placement or because I disagreed with the allegation of POV bias, but because they had no explanation at all, not even an edit summary explanation. BTW, Murat's comment was also not appropriate for the Bitlis city entry - it has almost no "Armenian history" content - I think he may have intended it for the Van_Resistance article, which he also placed a POV tag on, or some yet to be tagged article. Meowy 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A POV tag should be used with a comment on the talk page, but no where in the template or documentation does it say it's required. The template does say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." A better way to have approached this would be to drop a friendly note on the user's talk page saying something like "Hi, I didn't see a explanation on the talk page for the POV tag. Could you please tell me what you think the problem is so I can understand? Thanks!" --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to say here that it is required, the word "must" is used, [50] quote, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". That page also says "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag". If the addition of the tags were not justified, then I was justified in removing it. Any words contained in the tag are irrelevant if the use of the tag is not justified. Meowy 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good catch, it sure does say that. Still, if an editor only sees what's on the tag and the documentation, how would they know? A friendly question on their talk page will get good results most of the time, and doesn't take much effort. The few times it doesn't, at least you know you're dealing with a jerk. :)

Since you don't know why the tag was added, how do you know you were justified in removing it?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Well, other than just wikilawyering...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags are there to initiate discussions to improve articles. If nobody knows why a tag was added, there can be no discusson. In such a circumstance there would be no justification in having that tag and the tag should be removed. But I accept your suggestion about first making a suggestion in the editor's talk page - I'll try that in the future. Meowy 21:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From that page, "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." It's clearly apparent that Murat believes the article is bent towards an Armenian POV. Let's stop arguing about tag additions and go to the talk page and engage in a dialogue with Murat. If, in a few days, he still doesn't provide specific points that he considers to be POV, then I will remove the tag from the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What Murat believes is only going to be an issue when Murat starts to provide some examples of the alleged unaceptable content! He didn't do that when placing the tags. Yes, you are right that if he continues not to provide specific points then the tags can be removed. The total lack of any points, of any reasons for having the tags, was the reason why I removed them - so my removal of them in that situation was not "bickering" (calling them that did not calm the situation). I'm pleased that you say you will remove the tags in a relatively short time if no specific points are provided, and I will engage with any issues raised in the talk pages. Meowy 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a how-to guide. Not binding policy. Since its not binding policy you should have left a note rather than remove them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism only account

Resolved

 – indeffed, no apparent intention to do anything but WP:BLP violations --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tru5balla appears to be a low intensity vandalism only account. Made a bunch of vandalism edits over a day or two in october, got template warned at the time, then returned today and made this [[51]] edit to the pedophilia article. I'd support an indef block this point, but leave the decision to do something or nothing to the wise.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Have requested oversight for the offending edit. --Rodhullandemu 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:AIV too for things like this, just so you know.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuous harassment of other editors and referencing falsely sources

Rjecina is involved into these incivilties for a long period of time - even after being publicly warned by Wikipedia's administrators. Evidence and behavior is here:

a) Throwing claims falsely calling upon valid sources

If Helsinki Committe for Human right is saying that Serbia has been puppet state in period 1941 - 1944 then Serbia has been puppet state false claim thrown here [52] proven as false by other editor here [53]

It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list false claim thrown here [54] proven as false by other editor here [55] - the same false claim is repeated here even after getting the warning above -[56]

are making clear difference between 6 camps and all others false claim thrown here [57] - not supported by any reference counted by him/her

b) The same person had thrown a great number accusations against other editors calling them baselessly sock-puppets. See

[58], [59], [60]

The best description of this un-ethical behavior is given by a few administrators' warnings:

You need to find other ways to occupy your time than making a lot of these sorts of requests. And you could stand to work on your general approach to editing and interacting as well... it's not as collegial as it could be. I think Ricky spoke rather harshly to you on your talk page, but I find myself in general agreement thematically. Too much of this is not productive, and is wasting the time of others. Please consider different approaches. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

or from: [61]

Don't try to be a smart ass. I told you then and I'll tell you the same now: only Thather knows what likely means and that's it for me. Don't act like I'm suggesting unbanning everyone else. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. My issue is that you claim EVERYONE you disagree with is a sockpuppet of somebody. My patience with that line of arguing is at an end. Frankly, your user page is ridiculously aggressive and I believe a massive violation of WP:USER. I would suggest you tone it down and stop treating this like a battleground. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

which this person Rjecina keeps ignoring. I suggest an indefinite block of this account - for deliberately disrespecting the Wikipedia code of conduct and harassing other editors - even after receiving multiple warning coming from other users and administrators.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gosh, a Washington DC Verizon user complaining about Rjecina, who could that be?. Thatcher 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, that is entirely uncalled for. Either you have sufficient evidence to block 72.75.xxx or you don't. Last time I checked, you were telling Rjecina to back off on this one. As far as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, our policies require us to AGF and not smear other editors. So it might be appropriate for you to either block this IP based on your checkuser results or well-grounded suspicions arising from them - or restrain yourself from such allegations. The first will result in the immediate closure of this thread based on your evidence; the second will result in my very substantially adding to it in the very near future, as I too am mightily tired of Rjecina. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Smear"? Overreact much? I think our Checkusers are entitled to a little sarcasm. John Reaves 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think so, John? On what grounds do you think that sarcasm is helpful here? As I've said, either his checkuser results are sufficient to block this IP or they are not, in which case AGF applies, and we are required to apply as much GF to IPs as to other editors. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I tell Rjecina to back off? And AGF does not mean I have to put blinders on and lower my IQ by 40 points before responding. In any case, Velebit has not edited from a logged-in account in a long time, making a current checkuser report useless, not to mention the fact that Verizon has dynamic IP addressing. For your part, would you care to suggest just how many people (1) live near DC, (2) subscribe to Verizon, (3) edit Wikipedia, (4) edit Serbian topics, and (5) have a beef with Rjecina? (1) and (2) are very large, (3) quite a bit smaller, assuming there are 10,000-20,000 active editors at any one time, and (4) and (5) likely narrows it down quite a bit. I would take claims of abusive editing more seriously from a registered, long time user than from an anonymous IP who shares considerable similarities with a banned user. Thatcher 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that is your view then I don't quite see why 72.75.xxx is still around. Heaven knows how many times I've seen the IP address had his ass hauled over to RFCU by Rjecina. Regarding your last point that "I would take claims of abusive editing more seriously from a registered, long time user than from an anonymous IP", yes, I'm on it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

As per Thatcher suggestion I've clicked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Velebit and, then, found

WHOIS RECORD

4.249.6.252

OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc.
OrgID: LVLT
Address: 1025 Eldorado Blvd.
City: Broomfield
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80021
Country: US

66.217.131.125

OrgName: PaeTec Communications, Inc.
OrgID: PAET
Address: One PAETEC Plaza
Address: 600 Willowbrook Office Park
City: Fairport
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 14450
Country: US

70.239.22.239

OrgName: AT&T Internet Services OrgID: SIS-80
Address: 2701 N. Central Expwy # 2205.15
City: Richardson
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75080
Country: US

71.252.101.67

OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc.
OrgID: VRIS
Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr
City: Reston
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20191
Country: US

Going further, I've clicked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Velebit - so, this Thatcher in order to support his friend Rjecina marked likely a number of users. May I ask him - 'likely' means guilty? Of what? (4) edit Serbian topics, and (5) have a beef with Rjecina? Holocaust is a Serbian topic? have a beef with Rjecina resulting automatically into conclusion that behind the beef is always the same person?>
So, cristal ball of a checkuser (who cannot see, not he is allowed to see by the law, any data behind the IP address randomly assigned to an internet user) tells us 'clearly' that the same person used four different accounts moving around the USA just to tease some checkusers? --72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no point to argue here with people like Thatcher. He will block you - for sure after reading the above. Rjecina has some other supporters of her dirty business among adinistrators - Ricky and EyeSerene. I am preparing an article about holocaust denial and defamation of Einstein's name applied and 'elaborated' in the Ustashe and Template Holocaust articles - by the same Rjecina and company. Got some initial support from the Anti Defamation League people. I am going to post an initial version of the article on my user page before sending it to the Anti Defamation League - all comments are welcome.--I am Mario (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See the subsection below. I have blocked Mario following this threat (and earlier ones). The incivility would be enough but the repeated threats make it beyond the pale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:I am Mario blocked

I've had enough of the legal threats from User:I am Mario. I have blocked him indefinitely following both here and here and the mess at Jimbo's talk page from last month, I've had enough of him. He was already blocked 48 hours for accusing everyone of being a Holocaust denier and he clearly has no interest in anything but insults. If he rescinds his threats and actually starts being civil (in retrospect, threatening Jimbo that you are going to go to newspapers claiming everyone is a Holocaust denier should have gotten him blocked). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking for outside views since I'm one of the multitudes that he's threaten to go public with, making me biased in a way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima. Yes, again, yes really.

This is a response to my comments urging Roux to disengage in the above thread. No sooner do I urge Roux to disengage than I get WP:TROLLING behavior from Ottava Rima, taunting that he's escaped two prior community bans. This is, coincidentally, the exact sort of 'he'll do it again' behavior I was discussing above, and shows that OR feels he can go up to the widest boundary over and over, ignoring the warnings given just hours ago. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That comment seems more like a harmless joke to me. I'd let it go. Bring it up again if we do end up with a third such discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Ottava, please remember the discussion we had earlier. Sometimes what you may intended to be a joke is interpreted much differently. While I do not think the intention was malicious, under the current circumstances I can see how it could be interpreted as such. Tiptoety ^talk 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have a hard time interpreting anything with a "haha" and two :P's as malicious... Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd abuse of process, for which Thuranx ought to be ashamed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no abuse of process. Fresh off an AN/I thread, Ottava Rima appears to taunt those who supported consequences for his actions with a big fat' nyah nyah, i got away with it'. It's incivil trolling ,and we all know it. This is the place to bring such things. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taunting. Just being self deprecating. Plus, don't mind Malleus. By the way, I am male. Ottava Rima is poetic, and although poeta is in the first declination, it is masculine. So, don't let that confuse you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its a tad odd when ThuranX was one of the people around the last time that a community ban went through and was lifted on my account, and he rooted me on to reforming. I don't know why he wouldn't remember this, but I still have the emails. I tend to remember when people support me. But yeah. Hmm. I'm just a content producer, which makes me a wikidragon. You know how we are hunted, right Malleus? :) Wez should not exist in these parts. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. ThuranX, I think the title is cute. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Ottava, disengage with these types of comments. Your "harmless" comments spilled into something far more yesterday; I don't want to see that happen again. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I don't believe you have, or can change. That's why I'm supporting blocks and seeking blocks for your obnoxious behaviors. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As Nuclear points out, there is a certain 'Type of comment' Ottava Rima makes. He was warned recently, and per JoshuaZ no so recently, about this, and continues. JoshuaZ counts this as a third such incident. In baseball, three strikes would be an out. ThuranX (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? Text makes it impossible to communicate. Ambiguity. Irony. Intonation. All gone. Have a drink. Have some fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And ThuranX, with my experience as a sysop I don't really recall ever having a "three strikes" policy, nor do I remember it being constant at the pedia. As you can tell from my block log, three isn't a magic number, and that much of it is politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I was just using Ottava's count of two prior community ban discussions. I'm assuming that correct. Moreover, that doesn't make these a strike-out. N community ban discussions for large N is not by itself an argument that we should have community ban discussion N+1. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh gesh, do we need to bring in algebra? Simple fact is that ThuranX believes I have had too many community discussions involving my actions. Simply put, it would make sense that there is a trend. One could say that they were trials and not proof of wrong doing, so could be dismissed, but another could say that they are indicative of a greater behavior. Plus minus, pro con, etc. ThuranX has obviously changed his mind about me since the last time when he originally wanted me banned, then decided that I should stay and reform. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing of Comments on Talk Page

Resolved

 – The contending parties have resolved their dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne continues to edit and alter my comments on Talk:Gordon Ramsay. The first one was to remove my bolding of policy here, my restoration and link to policy on editing other comments here, the reverting here, readdition, revert, and damage caused by editing my comments. I request assistance as my comments are within guidelines and editing them is against wp:Talk_page_guidelines. Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Arcayne has been talked to before, multiple times, about his refactoring of others' comments to fit his agenda and his sensibilities. He knows better. block him for it. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Ah yes, Thuran X's comment - hello pot, meet kettle from volcano. Please. Respectfully, is there any ANI discussion about me you won't involve yourself in? You don't like me, I get it. We don't edit anywhere together. Might you be persuaded to address the log in your eye before complaining about the splinter in mine? Do you actually even read any of the background of the ANIs you post in, or just assume I am the bad guy? Jeez, ThuranX; maybe even avoid contributing years-old resentment and stop posting your ire? It's getting old.

Now, that unpleasantness aside, the complaint addressed by Knowlegeum has a little bit to it. I did in fact remove bold-text from his/her post of a paragraph-long post from RS or BLP; I figured they might be new, and unaware that bold text is like shouting (and said as much in my edit summary). However, I think I was correct to move the comments, as they were inserted within discussion threads that orphaned my responses, rendering them useless. I did not change the text, intent or content of the posts; I only moved them into their chronological order. Am I wrong to do so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there fellas! It seems as if this may just be a simple misunderstanding. It appears as if Arcayne was just trying to format the talk page in a more readable manner, and may have inadvertently removed some of Knowledgeum's comments. I think it's best if we leave posts in Article talk pages "unformatted"; that is, we should leave them how the original user posted them. Using bold text does not automatically equate to "shouting" either; it may simply just be a way to highlight the important part of one's post, and can be a useful tool in doing so. If you guys get together on your respective user talk pages or on the article talk pages, I'm sure you'll be able to clear this up, as it really does appear to be nothing but a good-faith simple misunderstanding gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bolding amounts to shouting in this case; quoting large sections from policy is inappropriate - thats what we have links for. But edit warring over it is wrong, on both sides William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaillimh and WMC, thanks for your input. You are both right; I should have headed to the user's talk space to ask them to move their comment into chronological order. Had I done that, the newer user might have been inclined to also listen to my comments regarding the usage of bold text for emphasis, and not just automatically revert. I just didn't want my own comments orphaned by the insertion of Knowledgeum's later post. In retrospect it appears (aside from ThuranX' inappropriate commentary) that this was a good faith mistake. I'll link up again with the user, and see if we can reboot the interaction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks a lot for your willingness to work with the other fellow on this issue! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've never had a big beef with moving an entire comment to allow the conversation to flow better. Bstone (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and insight, Arcayne and I have managed to reconnect and I believe we have worked through the dispute with common understanding, I believe the issue to be fully resolved. Knowledgeum :  Talk  23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pee Wee Herman is God Users/Socks

A user, who has several socks under "Pee Wee Herman is God", and then a Roman numeral, has repeatedly returned and vandalised. I ask for an account-creation removal in order to stop him. So far, he is at number four five six, and counting. Cheers. Sincerely, Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The target article Pee Wee Herman has been semi-protected. Whether that will prevent further disruption or just deflect it remains to be seen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant request at WP:RFCU/IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sporcu

This user was blocked indefinitely for vandalising Azerbaijan-related pages, specifically for redirecting them under non-appropriate headings. He made dozens of edits starting November 24. Please revert these pages back, as it is time-consuming for a user to revert them manually. Thank you in advance. Parishan (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was annoying.  Done Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd, WP:UP

I wouldn't mind if at least one other uninvolved person took at this. I've protected User:Zahd for 24h because Zahd has passed 3RR on said page (as it's his userpage, I figured blocking would not be productive). Specifically, this was his last edit. Now, he is claiming that it's OK because he commented the worst parts out. I kind of, uh, disagree. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#User:Zahd. This disruptive editing is getting mildly annoying. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing left besides the "hello" on my userpage was the short, terse statement "There is a God." Sorry, but I fail to see how this violates any reasonable concept of rationality, decency, or personal boundary to express a concept in four words; as awful, depressing, and ominous though those words may be. -Zahd (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It violates the neutral point of view rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's erm, my user page. WP:UP doesn't seem to support Crustacean in this notion that even "there is a God" should be viewed as offensive enough to blank. -Zahd (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure, Zahd and I both edit the abortion article. That out of the way, Zahd probably should be slapped with a long term block in hopes that (s)he'll either get bored or learn to be a more productive editor. Zahd and Wikipedia are at cross purposes. Wikipedia informs its readers about a wide variety of topics (tries to anyway), Zahd wishes to sermonize on abortion and the right to life.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an inherently offensive expression by itself. It's the way he's using it that's the problem - i.e. to "make a point", and as a direct connection with his contentious editing history. He's apparently also under the mistaken impression that he "owns" his user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not "sermonizing" to be pithy and or exact, or to represent an under-represented side in the course of balancing articles in accord with concepts that people actually use. For example the word "murder" isn't even once mentioned in the abortion article, even though its the actual term my side uses to refer to abortion. It's absence is so because there's a sickening kind of bias going on here. NPOV might be something people need to read up on again. So, is the problem is that my editing is POV, or that the POV I openly state allegiance to does not need representation? I am finding only bias and disruption in my critics. -Zahd (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite pointy to me. I don't really care what goes onto his user page, if he wants to announce his POV and let everyone know he's here to push that way and to check his edits, it doesn't matter much. If he's crosses the line, he'll get booted. However, his edits seem to be pushing the boundaries to try and cause disruption. Am I forgetting something, or is this post [62] a reedit of something that was deleted? He seems determined to get his licks in. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What you seek, you find, Zahd.--Tznkai (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

... huh. Didn't even see that subpage. Can an uninvolved administrator delete or userify that?--Tznkai (talk)

I've marked it for speedy deletion - or at least I think I have, as I've never marked something for speedy deletion before. I think that's supposed to trigger it to show up on a list somewhere, and then an admin can decide its merits, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. That is the second time, too. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Abortion (under some conditions) is lawful, therefore is not murder. Same goes for capital punishment and warfare. I happen to oppose all three, and I might want to label all three as murder. But the law rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is exactly that, and you are right in that "the law" rules. But the reason abortion is called murder is that it is "unlawful" according to God's law. Man can do what he wants only to find out later that God disapproves. Now of course God may have no place in your life, but for the majority of the world that holds certain beliefs, His law is quite relevant. To repeat the point, it represents an unfortunate and despicable kind of bias that editors here remove that terminology from an article. That's not to say that the article should say "this equals that," but to simply report "these people say this is that." It's NPOV to attribute it. Yet that concept is still being removed by editors pushing their point of view. They just don't like it, because it goes contrary to their views, and nor do they like the simple words "there is a God" even on someone's own userpage.. -Zahd (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Actually from recent memory, it seemed like your response to having your edits reverted was to post your personal beliefs on your talk page, which apparently most editors took as your rebuttal and dismissal of their edits based on your own POV. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They can 'take it' anyway they want to, as long as they don't in their quest to promote their atheism, go out of their way such as to stomp on an opinion or fact on my own userpage. They would not do so if they were not in fact acting out of bias, connected to their biased dislike of my editing. -Zahd (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER. You don't own your userpage. It's not a blog. Furthermore, disagreeing with your POV is not pushing atheistic values, and assuming anyone who finds fault with your edits is biased isn't a really good way to start around here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:USER. It still is not apparent how the simple statement "there is a God" is somehow improper, such that people have to go out of their way to abort it. -Zahd (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're trying to make a point, which is against policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As well, you're presenting it as fact instead of belief (as noted below), and further than that you were also including the two other obviously unacceptable statements, even if they were commented it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

American law is the supreme law of the land. Religious doctrine is not. The statement "there is a god" is merely an opinion, not a fact. "I think there is a god" is a fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we Trust??" Some Wikipedians, one or two, don't actually live under "American law" and thus might be less interested in American law, and more interested in UN law or even higher law. -Zahd (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I =/= place to argue about God or abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we trust - all others pay cash". >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the userpage edit was disrupting Wikipedia. This offtopic-leaning discussion here seems more disruptive to me than the userpage, but perhaps that's just me. Please, everybody, relax, policing userspace tends to inflame the situation, and is rarely productive. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've already stated why I feel it was, and the discussion is really only mildly off-topic. This user has attempted to provoke reaction with his userpage on multiple occasions, and it's getting tiresome. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)The conversation has certainly devolved into this off topic nonsense argument about God's existence, but the userspace edits were disruptive, needlessly confrontational for an account working exclusively in an already controversial article. Furthermore Zahds insistence that good faith edits are done because of offense to assumed atheism is problematic, and potentially insulting to any of those editors are not athiests themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many pages that contain references to the editors' religious beliefs. That's not the issue. It's the in-your-face that's the issue. It's a bit like a child who's told not to touch someone else, so they stand as close as they can to the one they're told not to touch, and proclaim innocence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we are supposed to be working on an encyclopedia here. If he wants to write offensive nonsense on his userpage, I don't care. List it for MFD or something and get it deleted in total. If he calls out a specific user or is otherwise generally disruptive with it, then that's different. All I want to know is 'how is he on the encyclopedia?' Frankly, if this section is typical, I'd say the drama he's creating isn't worth whatever good he's doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suggested that Zahd try a good, old-fashioned, modest userbox instead of the polemic, and even helpfully gave him a link to the "political" userbox gallery--but he ignored my advice. The fact that he blatantly ignored five editors at User_talk:Zahd#Your_user_page (let alone violated WP:3RR) by reinstating the polemic strikes me as borderline uncivil. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe The Plumber article talk page

Could someone take a look at the Joe the Plumber talk page. An anonmyous user is continuous trolling the page by posting numerous accusations of the subject being "Turd Gurglar" with specious questions. I think its probably a WP:BLP issue at minimum, but also its a clear attempt at trolling and disruption. The page was semi-protected for a few days which curtained the anons behavior (and the IP is changing), but protection has expired and the anon has resumed his activity. Thanks. Dman727 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse intervention request. Blocking and/or semi pp again. — Becksguy (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the page now and gave a note at User_talk:71.35.116.124. Let's see if they act reasonable or would be denied the ability to mess around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got a response and told him what his options are. The ball's in his court now. Ping me if he continues. I'll protect the talk page and everyone can move on. He'll be bored soon enough of this nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, maybe I was a little bitey but it seems like he's done. Mark as resolved and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this is the last of it, as it has been repeated, so lets wait for a while longer, if that is OK. — Becksguy (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV?

Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist Incivilty

some one please helpme here

User:Ncmvocalist is adding sock template to my page without proof - 59.96.45.41 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this the IP sock of Srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) .

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User_Srkris -- Tinu Cherian - 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Srkris

Following up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User Srkris, it now appears that Srkris is evading their block anonymously:

• 59.92.140.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.191.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.96.45.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

That last IP in particular made a fair number of edits before I blocked it (they're currently requesting unblocking, all comments welcome). Regardless of whether this is Srkris, it seems worth a few eyes. Bringing this up for community attention and review, as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And a direct link to the thread directly above too ... ►BMW◄ 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very evident from the contribs that it is Srkris (talk · contribs) , see also above, for a report by the IP sock -- Tinu Cherian - 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's back with a renewed DHCP lease...

• 59.92.171.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-Kgasso (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban

I think this is quite straightforward and there's no reason to accept any unblock request. His block in 2006 was increased due to sockpuppetry - he clearly is not receptive to community feedback, whether it's back then, or now, or any time in the near future. I believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a ban (and a significant increase in the duration of the block). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

false accusations against me

• I have been accused of being a vandal and a sockpuppeteer by users here, and it has happened behind my back without informing me! I am deeply disturbed by this! Some innocent edits all done in good faith by me have been adressed as vandalism by Fran - such as removing inappriotately added templates on statements already covered in an articles givensources. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll need to see some diff's where these activities occurred please. ►BMW◄ 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you but I am not very much familiar with that. I have been here for almost two months now, I guess, and longer as an IP but merely as a reader of articles at first. I haven't got much knowledge on how to give a diff. (and my english is far from perfect) Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)