Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    1RR enforcement requested

    For the second day in a row now, Tillman (talk · contribs) is in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[1] To his credit, he self-reverted his violation yesterday,[2] but is continuing the same edit warring behavior.

    Today, Tillman made a total of three reverts to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which I will only count as two total reverts as two of the three reverts were consecutive. However, the diffs show him reverting three times in 24 hours, which is a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1RR, as well an explicit violation of the 1RR altogether.

    • 01:04, 8 June 2011 Tillman (Please don't add contentious material without first seeking consensus. See head of talk page. You know not to do this.[3])
      • Revert of 00:50, 8 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[4]
    • 00:58, 8 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,104 bytes) (Undid revision 433119267, stable text, prior discussion at talk. Please don't edit-war.)[5]
      • Revert of 23:45, 7 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[6]
    • 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,185 bytes) (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[7]
      • Revert of 16:15, 6 June 2011 version by Tarc.[8]

    Disclosure: I have made one revert to this article in the last 24 hours, at 23:16, 7 June 2011.[9] Could someone please enforce this 1RR and help Tillman understand the concept of a revert? I've tried on the talk page, but he doesn't get it. Recently, Tillman even said "I'm easily confused about 1RR".[10] However, Tillman unambiguously reversed the edits of another editor three times today (two consecutive), and I would like for this behavior to stop. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified about this discussion on their talk page. I have asked Tillman to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)I'm not entirely sure this is a 1rr violation. His first 'revert' was replacing content that had been removed a couple of days ago - not within the same period. It seems to me that it would make sense if to count as a revert in the context of the xRR rules it would have to be a revert of material that had been adjusted in that same period - otherwise, everyone would be in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edited a long existing page more than three times in a day - since whenever you remove content that has been added to a page it's reverting a historical edit. Obviously that's kind of an extreme example, but it definitely makes sense to me to think that for a revert to count as a revert, the thing you're reverting would have to be in the covered period - before his first "revert" there had been no edits to the page in more than 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The first revert was a revert and was the same revert he self-reverted at 17:24 24 hours ago to avoid the 1RR the previous day:
    • 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[11]
    • 17:24, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Reverted edits by Tillman (talk) to last version by Tarc)[12]
    • 16:39, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Undid revision 432870459 by Tarc (talk)[13]
    Everyone is not in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edit. Tillman was in violation because he reverted Tarc, self-reverted to avoid the 1RR, then returned after 24 hours expired to make the same revert. Then, he made another revert at 23:45/00:50. It is clear and unambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, policy re this situation is as follows: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus I don't think I've violated 1RR, and I pointed this out to Viriditas here, before he filed this report.
    I'm sorry to say that this appears to be a part of a program of harassment that this user has been carrying out. Please see this report, which is only a sample. A sad situation, Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's referring to your 22:37 and 00:58 edits as two different reverts. Your last two edits certainly count as one revert, but if reverts under the xRR's do not have to be reverting material that was added within the same period, you would have two reverts in 24 hours and be in violation of 1rr. Of course if that's the case, it sure looks to me like he was in violation of 1rr himself on the 5th/6th. Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 23:49, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Books */ Non-notable, self-published book removed")
    2. 00:36, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Rv Tillman's misundersanding of the concept of "undue". This is fully supported, summarizes the mainstream opinion, and is considered an expert source on PR campaigns")
    3. 13:51, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Media reception */ Remove meaningless, unencyclopedic climate change denial statements per talk")
    I did notice it myself initially, but since EdJ subsequently brought it up on your talk page, I just copied his diffs here instead of grabbing them myself. You removed content twice, and performed a direct reversion once. Contrary to how you understand policy, removal of content does count as a reversion, and can be every bit as editwarry as hitting the rollback button. They are consistently enforced in the same manner, and the commonsense reading of WP:3rr supports that. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Emphasis mine - removing text someone else has added to a page is partially undoing their edit, and is a revert. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you are mistaken. Removal of content is not considered a revert unless one is undoing the actions of another editor that implicitly restores the previous version of a page. The word revert means to "return to (a previous state, condition, practice, etc.)" In other words, I can remove content and never perform a revert, as I did at 23:49 and 13:51. This does not conflict with Wikipedia policies. Do you understand that one can make unique edits that add, delete, and modify content without ever performing a revert? In fact, there is no policy or guideline that says otherwise. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 are not reverts by any accepted definition of the word "revert" nor by Wikipedia's use of the word. Removing content does not mean reverting content. A common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Kevin posted the exact wording of the policy above, and it doesn't say what you say it says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It says exactly what I said it says, namely that 1) undoing another editor's work is considered a revert. It does not say that a revert is defined as removing content. It isn't, and never has been. One has to, according to policy, specifically undo another editor's work, which implies restoring a previous version of the page. One does not "revert" simply by removing or deleting content, and the policy has never said that. I can add, remove, or modify content, none of which constitutes a revert by itself. The entire concept of edit warring and reversion only has meaning in terms of two or more editors. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 did not revert any editor or restore a previous version by another editor. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "undo" does not imply "restore". Read the section where it says "or in part".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Or in part" refers to the work of the editor you are reverting. IIRC, historically this was added because editors would deliberately alter the revert (known as a "partial revert") in an attempt to evade the 3RR. To my knowledge, no editor has ever been blocked for violating the 3RR simply for removing material. They have, OTOH, been blocked/banned for blanking and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In a technical sense, any removal of content could be considered a revert, since at one time whatever text you're removing didn't exist, so removing content means reverting to a state before that content was added. But I don't believe anyone ever treats such a thing as a revert, especially for xRR situations. An edit war involves someone actively getting into a conflict with another person by directly trying to hinder their development of the article by undoing their actions. If I add a fact to an article and 2 years later someone deletes it, I don't consider that a conflict. But it's situational. Reverts can sometimes happen with weeks in-between edits and if it's an ongoing thing, it becomes a slow-motion edit war that is just as disruptive, if not more so, than people reverting each other every 5 seconds (the former could last months or years, while the latter might end in a day). -- Atama頭 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to go ahead and stop posting to this thread before I wind up getting a WP:Civil block. Have fun. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. You're getting a good taste of what dealing with Viriditas is really like. A unique experience. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You violated the 1RR, refuse to self-rv, and are now using the NB to attack me? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did violate 1RR, but, in context, you (V) did so first, and one of his reverts was reverting your second revert of the series the previous day. And it is completely untrue that (for 3RR violations) the revert needs to be of a recent change. An outright removal usually isn't called a revert, but, in case of known edit warriors, such as yourself, it may be considered so.
    And, finally, WP:AN3 is the proper venue for this complaint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no such 1RR violation, and nobody ever claimed that a revert needed to be recent. The facts, Arthur, show that I did not revert anyone except for my edit at 00:36, 6 June 2011. The other two edits were unique deletions of content, neither reversions of another editor nor to a particular version. A revert is only a revert when it involves undoing another editor's work which implicitly restores a previous version of a page. SarekOfVulcan (and others) take issue with this particular wording, but it is in fact the very definition of the word "revert". To give you an example, Arthur, let's say I click the "random article" link over and over again until I find a page needing copyedits, cleanup, and removal of content. Let's also say that this particular article just so happens to be active, meaning the likelihood of consecutive edits (one edit after another with no edits by another editor) is low. Consider this: I make a series of four edits to this hypothetical active page involving the removal of content, whole or in part, for reasons of maintenance, accuracy, neutrality, etc. Due to activity (and for the sake of this example) the edit history shows my four contributions spaced out over four hours, one every hour. Have I just made 4 reverts? Am I in violation of the 3RR? Yes or no? For the sake of this example, assume that each one of my edits is unique and has not removed any material added by another editor or added material removed by any other editor on the page, and the result of each one of my edits is a new, unique version of the page. If you say "yes", then you are saying that no editor may remove any material from any page no more than three times a day, which is not supported by any policy or guideline. The policy on reversion refers only to undoing edits by other editors in the context of edit warring, not to the addition, subtraction, or modification of content alone. The facts show that I can delete material from an article four times in one day, and I can delete 35 different types of material 35 times from one article if I want without ever making a single revert. I cannot, however, repeatedly add or delete 1 item if another editor has deleted or added that 1 item within 24 hours. Also, I cannot undo different items from another editor more than three times in 24 hours. The two edits I made involve no reversion of any editor, and no restoration of any previous version by another editor. Deletions of content, like additions and modifications, are never considered reverts unless the edit undoes the edits of another editor. Who is the editor I have reverted in the two diffs above? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely wrong. As usual. Deletion of material is considered a revert for the purpose of 3RR, and reverting an edit (in whole or in part), no matter how long ago it was made, may be considered a revert. Specialized 1RR/0RR restrictions may have different definitions. At at least one article, a 0RR restriction means only that you may not revert a reversion of your own edit, or that you may not revert an edit without first commenting on the talk page. In your specific hypothetical: If you remove material, it must have been added by another editor, so your hypothetical is logically impossible. Even ignoring that, it would be a 3RR violation unless you put an {{inuse}} tag on the article, and had reason to make it stick, even if it were ignored by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong about what I've said, and you can't answer the questions I asked in the affirmative because the deletion and removal of content is not considered a revert unless some editor is being reverted. Good copyediting, for example, may require many edits consisting of deletions, none of which are ever considered reverts. I can provide example after example showing that you are wrong. Editors who remove and delete material over the course of a day are never in danger of violating the 3RR unless they are reversing the edits of a specific editor or editors, Anyone who claims otherwise is misinterpretating the concept of a revert and what it means. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that V's reverts were in the same section, while Pete's weren't.
    However, none this makes this notice board appropriate, either WP:AN3, or possibly, WP:AE, if the 1RR is part of an arbitration ruling. It appears not, but it says the 1RR has been superseded by discretionary sanctions which are subject to WP:AE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not need to be noted since they were not reverts nor did the edits undo the work of another editor. One can safely edit Wikipedia and remove material without ever worrying about the 3RR. Whether these edits were in the same or different sections is irrelevant. There was no edit war over the material and no editor was reverted. This discussion was brought here because the 1RR probation warning on the the talk page says to bring discussions about the remedy here. Whether that applies to 1RR violations is unclear. Are 1RR probation incidents usually reported at AN3? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 1RR (and the occassional 0RR) violations are reported at AN3. And I believe you'll find that deleting a section is considered a revert, whether or not it brings the page to a previous version or reverts a particular editor, recent or not. This page is for discussion of revising the sanction, as the sanction, itself, is an adminstrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and modified the talk page header requesting that editors take their concerns to WP:AN3.[14] Unfortunately, Tillman is continuing to violate the 1RR on a daily basis now, even during this discussion, which tells me this noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, since a pattern of disruptive editing has been demonstrated. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A revert and self-revert = net zero. Sorry - no violation that I can see. Decidedly not violating the 1RR rule, and not violating any other reasonable interpretation of any rule. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid you did miss one. Pete had at least two reverts since the self-revert, and those were within 24 hours of each other. I don't want to add heat, but V did get something right, for a change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I reverted two different editors. I reverted 09:15, 6 June 2011 Tarc (by undoing my prev self-revert), at 15:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman, about 30 hours after Tarc had reverted someone else. See here. So, that one should be OK, right?
    Then, two consecutive reverts of Viriditas, with no intervening 3rd party edits, as already discussed. One a restoration of stable consensus text improperly removed, as discussed upthread, might not be an actual, official "revert." Ah, this stuff makes my head hurt. Anyway, Arthur, if you ID the one you think is still a 1RR vio, I'll self-revert just to be cautious and cooperative. I do try to follow the rules (ex-military, we get that pounded into us early!), but the rules are confusing. As we've seen here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editor Kevin just pointed out that this really does violate 1RR, and I'm pretty sure he's right . I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the "Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess? Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. My sincere apologies -- I simply misunderstood the rule. Doh, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, here;s the source of my confusion. From the 1RR flag at the "edit article" page:
    • Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period.
    So, this notice might best be revised, to make clear that only one revert/day total is permitted. I read it as one per editor, but I now see the notice is ambiguous. (Or I'm dyslexic, and/or dumb?)
    I've tried to Self-Rv 3x now, but it won't take. I'll log off & try again later -- business first. Drat, Pete Tillman (talk)
    It's per article. Think about it this way, let's say that yourself and 3 other people have a 1RR at an article. You want to insert information and the other 3 disagree. So you add it, editor A reverts that, you revert editor A. Editor A can't revert you again without violating 1RR, so editor B makes the revert. You revert editor B. So then editor C reverts you, and you revert editor C. If the restriction was once per editor, it would favor you as the person that is going against consensus, which wouldn't make sense. As it is, 3RR or any xRR acts in part to prevent a single person from owning an article. -- Atama頭 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I seldom revert, and just misread the thing. Won't happen again! (I hope)
    Now for the MYSTERY SOLVED! I couldn't self-revert Tillman 15:37, 7 June 2011, because VIRIDITAS had again removed this stable text, against established consensus, at 16:16, 7 June 2011! diff. And then had the nerve to file a 1RR violation complaint. Remarkable brass, I'd say. I'll be interested to see what 3rd parties think of this, especially those who have wasted time on this frivolous report of a "violation" that endured for 45 minutes, and was re-reverted by the complainant, in classic edit-war behavior. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sorry to report that Tillman has just now violated the 1RR for the third day in a row at 17:41, 8 June 2011 with the re-addition of the {{syn}} tag, a tag that he has personally added to the statement "global warming conspiracy" at least three times: once at 04:15, 15 May[15], twice at 05:20, 15 May 2011[16], and now for a third time at 17:41, 8 June.[17] Considering that he is already in violation of the 1RR at this moment (his two reverts at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June ) he has once again violated the 1RR by restoring this tag. Previously, the tag was removed by Short Brigade Harvester Boris at 04:58, 15 May[18] and myself at 06:49, 15 May[19].
    Please note that the reason Tillman did not add the {{syn}} tag back into the article after it was removed between May 15 and June 1st by myself and SBHB, is because he volunteered (as did I and others) to take two weeks off from the article. It should be noted, that Tillman was the first editor to return to the article after the break, making a revert in his very first edit[20] and continuing to engage in deceptive violations of the 1RR on a daily basis. More to the point, there are open threads on the talk page that Tillman refuses to respond to, and these discussions directly pertain to his contributions.
    What we have here, is documented evidence of an editor who takes two weeks off to cool down, returns to the article just after the voluntary break expires, only to make reverts and multiple violations of the 1RR, all the while avoiding discussing their edits on the talk pge. I can provide further diffs if they are needed, but today's 1RR violation after this entire discussion should be evidence that something needs to be done immediately. I am continuing to request probationary 1RR enforcement at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning appears tortured to me, but if 3rd parties agree, I will be happy to self-revert.
    I notice you make no comment regarding your apparent "setup" for your original 1RR claim here. What is your reponse to that? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tillman, one does not require "reasoning" to simply observe that you have made three reverts in a little over the last 24 hours to an article that is on 1RR probation. These reverts occurred (as listed above) at 17:41, 8 June, 01:04 8 June, and 22:37 7 June. Since you've already admitted that you understand that your edits at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June were reverts, your confusion appears to involve your most recent edit at 17:41, 8 June. In this edit, you restored a {{syn}} maintenance tag that had been removed by two previous editors. The page history shows that you have added this tag a total of three times. The pattern here, is that you are incrementally reverting to your chosen version of the article before you took your two week break, which is a violation of the 1RR. Is this making sense to you, Tillman? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Drahmaz at CRUec? Ohz noz. Even though they probably already know about them, several users need to be reminded of arbcom restrictions. -Atmoz (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic behavior

    This doesn't quite fit AN/I, but since there was already a thread going here I thought it might be best to just add on to this thread, instead of posting at WQA. I had been monitoring this whole chain of threads, and made a couple posts earlier in this thread. I noticed an ongoing thread at User_talk:Tillman#June_2011 and posted in it pointing out to Viriditas that his behavior was being unnecessarily inflammatory. I could probably have phrased my post there more politely, but I suspect it wouldn't have helped. He brought the discussion to my talk page - User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Viriditas_1RR_complaint. This thread on his talk page is another pretty good example of problematic behavior from him.

    I would ask outside editors to review those links/Viriditas's behavior and comment on it. I feel like he's exhibited a pattern of disruptive behavior throughout those links/diffs, and I really cannot imagine that the underlying content/behavioral disputes that he is involved in can be successfully resolved unless he modifies his behavior. I'm hopeful that a few more people chiming in about this will convince him to modify his behavior.

    To be clear, I'm not trying to claim that my behavior throughout this was perfect - I just think that his behavior is problematic enough that it needs to be addressed. I am not going to post in direct response to any of Viriditas's future posts, but will answer any third party questions as necessary. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid Virditias' behavior is odd. He has "unique" interpretations of some of the guidelines:
    1. That using his name in a talk page section heading is "addressing" him and/or a personal attack.
    2. That deleting content is not a "revert" (at least for the purpose of the 1RR restriction on the article in question).
    3. That reverting an edit made a long time ago is not a "revert" (ditto).
    4. That posting a wall of sources on a talk page, some of which may be reliable, and some of which may support his edit, is the documentation required in order to support his edit to the lede of article covering material not contained in the body.
    I agree that he is unnecessarily inflammatory, but my attempts at sarcasm have also been interpreted as being unnecessarily imflammatory, so I really am not in a position to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to thank Kevin for starting this new discussion about me[21] and for personally inviting Arthur Rubin to contribute to it.[22] Arthur Rubin has been tag team reverting along with Tillman during this time,[23] and Arthur's behavior should be examined in the same vein as Tillman's. I would also encourage others to examine the talk page, where both Arthur Rubin and Tillman have been active. My behavior has been solely focused on improving the CRU article, whereas Tillman and Arthur have chosen to ignore responses on multiple discussion threads and to continue disruptive behavior such as tag team reversions and personal attacks. Here is a more detailed response to the concerns raised above by Keven and Arthur in the order they were made:
    1. Kevin claims that my use of the {{Uw-npa1}} template was "unnecessarily inflammatory" because the default template begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia". The template was added to Tillman's talk page[24] after he begin attacking me on the CRU talk page during this discussion.[25][26]
    2. Kevin claims that the thread pointing out Tillman's poor behavior is a "pretty good example of problematic behavior" from me. While I don't agree with his assessment, I do agree with Keven's request for outside editors to look at that discussion. Kevin claims that he's found a "pattern of disruptive behavior throughout those links/diffs". Perhaps Kevin could be kind enough to share those diffs.
    3. Arthur claims that my behavior is "odd" and that I have "unique" interpretations of some of the guidelines. However, we will see that I have quoted the policies and guidelines in each instance rather than interpreting them. If one is truly interested in reviewing what appears to be "odd" behavior, take some time to read Arthur Rubin's comments throughout Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In my opinion, it cannot get any stranger than that.
    4. Arthur claims that using the name of an editor in a talk page section heading is not a personal attack. Arthur has been repeatedly pointed to WP:NPA and WP:TALKNEW with no change in his view.
    5. Arthur (and Kevin) have both claimed that deleting content is a revert for the purpose of a 1RR restriction. Clearly, it is not, because if it were, Tillman would have violated the 1RR for the fourth straight day in a row.[27] The fact is, unless you are reverting the changes of another editor or restoring a previous version (usually a version under dispute) we don't consider adding, deleting, or modifying content a "revert". A revert is clearly defined as that which undoes the edits of another editor and implicitly restores a previous version. Others have disagreed, never bothering to actually look up the definition of the word "revert" and how it is used in multiple policies and guidelines. Any editor can add, delete and modify content without ever being worried about breaking the 1RR or the 3RR. The problem only arises when the change in content results in undoing the edits of another editor. This may, in some instances involve addition, subtraction, or modification of content. However, when one is not undoing the edits of another editor, the addition, subtraction, or modification of content is called editing, not reverting.
    6. Arthur claims that I don't believe that an edit "made a long time ago" is a revert. This is clearly false, as I've provided an example above (see 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) in this thread) of Tillman restoring the {{syn}} three times, twice two weeks ago, and a third time yesterday. Clearly, this is a revert, and I've pointed it out. Why Arthur would claim otherwise is a mystery.
    7. Arthur claims that there is a problem with my presentation of sources. I would be happy to present my sources in a way that Arthur prefers; all he has to do is present me with his chosen format. This particular point appears to be related to a content dispute on the talk page, rather than actual behavior. Arthur's behavior in that regard, is to focus more on edit warring and reverting rather than improving the article. I've asked Arthur to participate in the article writing process rather than simply edit warring over what he likes and doesn't like. Even Nigelj asked him to help. Arthur's response? "...I still think the article is horribly biased, and find it difficult to "write for the enemy"."[28] This is a surprising statement from an admin, who should already be fluent in writing for the enemy— we should strive to become virtuosi of NPOV.
    With that said, I am not perfect, and I have my faults, and I've made many mistakes and errors, some of which Arthur and Tillman have helped me fix. In order for the editing environment to improve, it will require good faith and participation on all sides. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific comments re V's current "wall of text", which may not be obvious to outside observers:
    2. I, too support outside observers studying those threads. I don't see any understanding of (for example) 1RR in any of those threads; I, too, made some serious mistakes.
    3,4,5. (But for different reasons) V can quote policies, but can't seem to actually understand them (see his reading of "address" as "name").
    7. Listing one source (for each of your additions) which is reliable, secondary, and actually supports the entire sentence, would be a start. As your lists do not distinguish those sources which are reliable from those which are not, do not distinguish those sources which support the entire phrase added from those which (even in your opinion) support one or two words, and do not distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, it would require more work to verify your additions as being sources from your lists than from google. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Arthur Rubin in the order of his comments above:
    1. I don't know what your statement "I don't see any understanding of (for example) 1RR in any of those threads" is supposed to mean. As I was not in violation of the 1RR, and Tillman was (and continues to be for the fourth day if we use your definition of a revert).
    2. I've already responded to this by pointing you to NPA and TALKNEW. You appear to think that is appropriate to "address" and/or "name" editors in article talk page headings. It is not, especially when I've asked you to stop.
    3. We've had extensive discussions on the use of sources on the talk page. You appear to be returning to your nothing but objections line of questioning. Feel free to use the article talk page to discuss your concerns and I'll directly respond to them. If you can't personally evaluate a source as reliable or not, or PS or T, I'm not sure what that has to do with me.
    Although I appreciate Arthur Rubin's continuing concerns, they have been previously addressed on the article talk page. Unfortunately, Arthur has a funny habit of making claims about his own behavior and blaming it on others. For example, when Arthur has been asked to provide a source demonstrating a particular point, he never provides one. He has been repeatedly criticized by other editors for arguing from his personal recollection of the event rather from the sources themselves. His criticism of my use of sources, therefore, is most ironic. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an involved(!) editor, I'm not going to contribute further here (and I'll stipulate that my reactions to his attacks has sometimes been excessive), but I will note that I have found dealing with Viriditas to be exceptionally difficult. He seems to be a remarkably pugnacious editor, and a glance at his Block log suggests this has gotten him in trouble before. Respectfully, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as talk page threads go, it's common knowledge that putting an editor's name in a heading is unhelpful. Discussions should be about content, not editors. To the argument that the discussion was about the content added by that editor, it's still not necessary to use the editor's name to refer to the content. Doing so unnecessarily personalizes material. Adding it in the first place is a minor mistake, but edit warring to retain the name in the heading after it's been removed is inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's usually not helpful to put an editor's name in a heading, but there's no specific policy or guideline which — addresses — that issue. It's not in WP:TALKNEW or WP:NPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly there is, and you've been pointed to it many times. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is, you linked to it yourself Arthur. WP:TALKNEW states, "While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history." -- Atama頭 17:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas. I've asked, many times, for him to provide sources which would be suitable for an actual reference. He has always replied with a long list, most of which are not suitable even as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to provide some diffs, Arthur? Of course you can't, because you just made that little fantasy up. Ever try writing fiction? Oh, you just did, nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down, fellows.

    V's name is gone from the title, I've apologized over there, and I agree it wasn't a good idea. Can we move on? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

    Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:
    == June 2011 ==
    Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


    That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjpresson seems to be referring to [29]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And edits like [30] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

    Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

    Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[31] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tokerdesigner banned for one week

    Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

    Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Please see [32].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [33]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case as time permits.
    As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":
    Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)
    followed by:
    Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)
    Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding? Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.
    That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:
    Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")
    "... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    I added the italics. What is a "wank"? Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service), in 18 consecutive edits including this:

    cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

    Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

    Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

    Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

    Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted all discussion of the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including the reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against it. What's wrong with that ref? (to be continued)


    Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tokerdesigner response tomorrow, o.k.?

    By June 7, my next time at the Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito) I will reply to the above, including exhibiting the 2009 edits which User:Mjpresson charadcterizes as "threats". I think the issues regarding "Original Research" and "Self Published Sources" should be debated thoroughly on the Cannabis Project page. Meanwhile, please turn to Cannabis smoking and try to figure out what User:Mjpresson has done with the "dugout" and "kiseru" illustrations.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DMSBel at Abortion

    DMSBel (talk · contribs)

    According to this list DMSBel is is topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Wikipedia space pages, for an indefinite period. Unfortunately, DMSBel has made several edits to Abortion and Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban (unless Abortion is not considered a topic of human sexuality). Abortion could be broadly construed to be a part of human sexuality, but I think you highly paid (with a health care plan) admins should make a final decision. Apparently DMSBel spoke to a friendly admin who made a summary decision that it did not. However, since abortion requires sex, I'm kind of concerned. Mostly, I don't care, but his editing in Abortion is no fun:

    He's editing a ton on the article and the talk. Much of the edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS and some are polite and somewhat productive. But the problem is he uses a slow edit war by placing a POV tag (funny thing is, I consider it a POV article because it's written politically and not medically). All other editors want is a definite ruling from the community about whether his indefinite ban to cover Abortion. Or not. His activity here certainly would be used against him if he ever asked that his topic ban be removed. He can't control himself. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you honestly believe abortion doesn't "cause a death", you yourself should be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that useful? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This came up a few weeks ago, and while I am concerned about this, I did not see a consensus that Abortion necessarily falls under the topic ban. For the record, I'm the admin who determined consensus and enacted the topic ban (unless memory fails me).
    I don't have the ANI archive link handy, but someone can presumably find it.
    If his activity is felt to be disruptive independent of the topic ban, then it can be actioned independently. If you can get consensus here to expand the topic ban we can revise that. I am not personally going to stretch the as-written ban that far.
    I'm only one admin here, so someone else may call it elsewise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your memory is fine, you left a message on my talk page regarding the ban at that time (ie. the enacting of the ban). Another editor asked you to clarify the scope of the ban some weeks ago after I reverted the removal of a picture from the article. I was in violation of a 1RR at that time as I had not been aware of what the general sanctions on the page were. Those two reverts (several weeks ago) and the tagging of two sections after consideration of issues raised by other editors regarding incorrect use of terminology in the article are the only actual edits I have made to the article. I have however discussed at some length with several editors regarding these matters on the talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding that I cut and pasted a fairly lengthy section from earlier archived discussion back to the talk page. This is not the case, as the edit history will bear out. I suspect some frustration has resulted from that cut and paste back to the talk page. I disagree with the practice myself, its better to link to earlier discussion. DMSBel (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure that reproductive rights are not about human sexuality??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only peripherally related, in the way that AIDS and midwife are. The ban does say "intepreted broadly", but I would interpret that to mean topics about sexual behavior, rather than reproduction. Looking at the original discussion, it looks like DMSBel was disruptive specifically at articles related to ejaculation. In that context, I would say that articles related to human reproduction are out of the scope, however it might be appropriate to extend the topic ban area. -- Atama頭 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be grateful for actual instances as to which comments are disruptive. In some peoples view if you are in disagreement with them and you put forth your thoughts, that may seem to them like disruptive behaviour. Would someone like to clarify which comments are disruptive. The issue on that page that is causing difficulty is one that I had not initially got involved in despite requests from two other editors to take action. Eventually I commented on the issue and inserted POV and factual accuracy tags on the disputed sections. I was under the impression that when there is doubt about POV or factual accuracy these tags could be inserted. The POV and accuracy issues are actionable, but would need discussion and consensus. Regarding whether article is within the scope of my ban. Several of the editors there regard the article as primarily medical. I disagree that it is solely or primarily medical, and the other projects of which it is of interest too ranges from Medicine to Philosophy. DMSBel (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The actual issue

    There's a consensus that DMSBel's current topic ban does not cover abortion. The scope could be extended to also cover human reproduction and anti-reproduction, if there's a sufficient reason. Orangemarlin, please explain how you believe DMSBel is disrupting the article. Chester Markel (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be more interested in hearing how Orange can get away with the ludicrous contention that "Abortion does not cause death". What planet is he from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A planet where they don't understand high school level biology, apparently. As even bacteria are "alive" in a biological sense, the same is true for a fetus. The moral and political controversy over abortion does not revolve around questions of whether or not life exists so much as "what is human", "what is a person", "what is sentient", etc. Wikipedia should never let down its vigilance against anti-science disruptive editing. Chester Markel (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The issue of whether an embryo or a fetus is a "person" legally is what the abortion debate has been about. No one with a lick of sense on either side of the issue argues that abortion doesn't kill. That would be asinine. If an editor actually makes that statement, they should be topic-banned, as they are obviously not competent to be editing that subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's high time to topic ban JJL (talk · contribs), for arguing that abortion doesn't involve the death of a fetus[34], and grossly misrepresenting the meaning of reliable sources to accomplish this objective. "Death" is an appropriate descriptive term for the fate of the fetus in an abortion, as over 65,000 Google Scholar results[35] clearly show that the death of a fetus is normally described as just that. Chester Markel (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really guys? Since when does holding an opinion that you don't like give sufficient grounds for a topic ban? Besides (and with apologies for furthering a content dispute on AIN), you're making a non-sensical semantic argument: of course abortion causes death of the fetus, much as appendectomy causes death of the appendix. But when people describe something as "causing death," without specifying what dies, the implication is that it's a person that dies, and that's not usually true of abortions and appendectomies. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. We have over 65,000 Google Scholar results for the term "fetal death"[36]. Are those sources written with "the implication is that it's a person that dies"? Not likely. As WP:MEDRS, the cited journals normally don't take sides on such hotly contested moral and political issues. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Different argument. Sure, "causing fetal death" describes something that kills a fetus. "Causing death" describes something that kills a person, when the subject is otherwise left unsaid. Anyway, I'm not here to engage a content dispute, just to point out that disagreeing with you isn't sufficient justification to demand a content-ban... although needing an IP editor to explain that to you, perhaps, is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently states that "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." It's absolutely clear, from the context in which the word "death" is used, that it directly refers to the preceding description of "a fetus or embryo". Whether or not said "a fetus or embryo" constitutes a "person" is plainly not an issue that the introduction is taking a position on, one way or the other. The article is obviously not using "causing death" with an implicit subject. Your claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of fact. Chester Markel (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like the article better if it said "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by fetal or embryonic death."? That's an absurd redundancy. Chester Markel (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, JJL didn't claim that the phrase "resulting in or caused by its death" carried with it "person" as an implicit subject. He simply asserted that, according to the WP:MEDRS he cited, abortion doesn't cause fetal death. That's an obvious, tendentious misrepresentation of what RS have to say about this subject. Chester Markel (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of "I'm not here to engage a content dispute" did you not understand? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "causing death" does not necessarily imply human. P.S. You don't get to drive the agenda here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree. P.S. That's not a valid justification for a topic ban. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The IP's got a point, Bugs. There was absolutely no call to make this into a dispute about whether or not a different user's talk page comment was correct. That's what the article talk page is for. Why don't we actually talk about the topic at hand? (This comment is addressed to everyone who has been feeding this silly digression, but Bugs, you started it, so trout for you.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Orange is the one who originated this discussion, and his behavior also comes under scrutiny. If he honestly believes that abortion doesn't cause death of the embryo or fetus, then he's incompetent to be editing on this subject and should be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add my request to see diffs showing violation of specific clauses of WP:TE. There's a lot of traffic on that article and its talk page, and there appears, from the Talk pages entries and Edit summaries, there's no small measure of tension between groups of editors. On the talk page, User:DMSBel's behavior seems appropriate, but I admit not having looked at every change to the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you honestly believe that, you should be banned from ANI. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been blocked 4 times in the last 6 weeks, so obviously your advice is valuable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, only twice. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, two blocks plus two removals of talk page privileges.[37] Like that's an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the tangent this went off on is (sadly) Wikipedia for you, though it don't have to be that way. I'd like to know if in my case heated discussion is being conflated with disruptive editing. Obviously the former is best cooled down, but frank and candid discussion is still at times a productive way to make headway. If memory serves me I have not actually made a single change to the article content in my time there (obviously I don't consider reverting removal by other editors of content that had been in the article for some time strictly making a change to content).DMSBel (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd rather someone open a separate ANI on the other issue of lack of competency, as if it becomes entangled with mine I could be here till the other one is resolved. I don't see that I should have to keep following this to see if the issues brought up in regard to myself are being addressed. The removal of the biological term "death" did occur not long after my being brought to ANI over an issue OrangeMarlin failed to give any specifics of in regard to. I would prefer, and I think it makes more sense to discuss each separately.DMSBel (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "death" thing seems silly to me, but that really is beside the point here. While it's true that we can and often do observe the behavior of those making reports on ANI (I even wrote an essay about that once) that's less of a behavioral issue and more of a content dispute (silly or not). The only person whose conduct has been alleged to be improper is DMSBel, but so far nothing has been put forward aside from a so-far unsupported claim of tendentious editing. Without examples, I don't see the basis for extending the topic ban. -- Atama頭 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion does not belong here in any shape or form. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    OK have I a case to answer here or not? I have been checking this repeatedly for two days now! I asked for specifics instances of disruptive editing. So have other editors. Nothing has been stated. I don't care for this waste of time, I am sure Admins don't either. Diffs should have been presented at the outset. I had even before this was brought here, asked the Admin who enacted my ban to review my actions on the page in question.DMSBel (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing has been put forth, so I'd say no. -- Atama頭 17:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I request this be closed then? DMSBel (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikpedia versus the Real World

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that human sexuality could exclude abortion. In the wider world (such as university textbooks[38]) abortion is regarded as a topic under human sexuality. Why is Wikipedia applying a special definition different than the real-world one? To avoid confusion, perhaps you could refine the topic ban to say "human sexuality (excluding abortion)." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The scope of topic bans is a matter purely internal to Wikipedia's administration. It isn't subject to WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NOR, or any other core policies that apply to article content. If the community wishes to create an original definition of "human sexuality" for the purpose of topic ban enforcement, it's free to do so. Chester Markel (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term harassment by Haymaker

    User:Haymaker (formerly known as Schrandit, in case this is relevant) has been stalking my edits for months. I've asked him repeatedly to stop, yet he continues.

    Diffs of stalking:

    (This is a fairly conservative list. There are other pages which the user likely followed me to, but I'll assume on probably unwarranted good faith that he had them watchlisted due to having made even the most insignificant minor edits in the far past, got there via another editor, happened to see the deletion discussion in the list, subject was recently dead, etc. Also omitted are pages where the user likely followed me there and subsequently disputed with me over content, but where the user's first edit was not a revert of one of mine, and pages where the user's edit was anything but a straight revert with absolutely no other changes. You may imagine for yourselves the number of articles that could be added to the list without these caveats, particularly the last couple. It's also more than possible that I've just overlooked some.)
    My first encounter with this user was, I believe, at Crisis pregnancy center, which I began to edit 16 November 2010. This is after I made the first edit in the subsequent list, but before Haymaker reverted it.
    Times are UTC -5 hours.
    Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, and where there were no intervening edits between mine and his
    Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, but where there were intervening edits between mine and his

    I'd like to state, though it should be obvious, that the correctness of the edits is not at issue here. Many of the older edits of mine are ones I wouldn't make today. The reason this is at ANI rather than somewhere for handling content disputes is because in each of these cases, and in others, I was stalked there by Haymaker.

    Diffs of warnings: [39] [40] [41]

    Additionally, if you look at the user's contributions for the past couple of months, a rather indecent proportion of them are content disputes with me; many, again, on pages to which he followed me.

    In conclusion, this hounding of my contributions has been going on for over six months now and continues to this day, and it's really starting to bother me.

    -- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that Haymaker made good faith edits, left edit sums and engaged in discussion on Talk pages where appropriate. You mentioned that presently he is engaging you in content disputes. Well, I think that that is par for the course particularly when editing controversial articles. My reading of WP:HOUND is that the following you around must be accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior". Do you have diffs for any of this behavior (the "important component")?
    A number of the edits in question are instances where you changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or similar. Does this seem unnecessary to you? Lionel (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Haymaker is and has been following me around in order to inhibit my edits since November. You could also read WP:HOUND again, which certainly does not require personal attacks, though if you want tendentiousness! oh, it's there. Take a look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me? Yes, I glance at your contributions, kinda like how you appear to follow at the contributions of everyone you have ever had a dispute with. Do you want me to run up a list of pages you had never edited before you say me or a half-dozen other editors you seem to dislike edit them? It would be wikistalking if I followed all your edits with the aim of causing you irritation or distress. Don't flatter yourself. The above edits were not contributed with any thought as to how they would make you feel, they were contributed to make the encyclopedia better. - Haymaker (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what, the fourth time you're trying to get me blocked on those same diffs? If no one found any wrongdoing the other times, why would you think it would work this time? Don't think you can distract everyone's attention away from your harassing behavior. It is wrong to stalk other editors regardless of whether you personally think it's okay. Your personal belief that you are right does not exempt you from the rules. And these desperate repeated attempts to get me blocked, with no new evidence, don't really do much for the impression that you're not trying to have me out of your way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you always refute arguments that I have not made? Do you take some joy in it? You have followed me (not to mention other editors) to more articles, you and I are cut from the same cloth on this issue and that link proves it. - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the link "proved" that I had stalked in the past, which it clearly doesn't since you've tried more than once to get me blocked with those diffs and no one has found any wrongdoing, the diffs in my list are from today. You are still stalking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In my reading of WP:Hound my attention was drawn to the phrases "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work", and "...disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is presumably what Roscelese is referring to, since these complained of actions clearly both inhibit Rosclese's editing and diminish the enjoyment of same. As Roscelese has requested that Haymaker stop stalking them (and in issues like this, it is the perception that is important and not the intent - so the argument that they are not stalking does not suffice) and the behaviour has continued, I consider that takes this into the issue of harassment. In any form, it is disruptive. Like civil pov pushing, following another editors contributions and reversing them - regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales - is counter to the collegiate and respectful editing environment advocated here. I would suggest that, if consensus is found, that Haymaker is warned that further wikihounding of Rosclese's edits will result in an interaction ban.
    Further, since comment has been made, it is necessary to change the emotive "pro-life" phrase to the neutral (medically and legally, as well as linguistically) "anti-abortion" unless a source is being directly referenced. I wonder if this difference in viewpoint on this subject has to do with the issue complained of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the substance of the edits is not the issue. Haymaker would be wrong to harass me even if, content-wise, he were in the right. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this is stalking, per Roscelese and LessHeard vanU. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So when I improve an article, if you have edited it in the past, my improvements constitutes harassment? - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If "the past" is one hour ago and the "improvement" (ha) is part of a persistent pattern of following my edits in order to revert them, as documented above? That's textbook hounding. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't duck the question, you said "the substance of the edits is not the issue." So what is the issue? Am I never supposed to edit articles you have also edited? - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly - the substance of the edits is not the issue. The issue is that you have very obviously followed me to the articles after disputing with me on other articles. Don't make silly comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Woa. I had forgotten that I am one of Roscelese's wikistalking victims. Ironic. I speculate that the experience was so painful I suppressed it. Haymaker's diff uncovered the suppressed memories. Horrible. Just horrible.

    LessHeard, I detect a contradiction in your reasoning. You do cite the policy, in part, "for no overriding reason." But then you state, "regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales." You're referring to Haymaker's edit sums and content discussions on Talk pages. Well, a "valid argument" i.e Haymaker's explanations and discussion is an overriding reason. The policy is worded with a bit of foresight to remove the subjectiveness of these types of reports. It provides a test:

    If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

    Haymaker's conduct fails this test. Apparently so did Roscelese's conduct as evidenced by Haymaker's diff. I'm generally opposed to double standards. How about you? Lionel (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can we get some more admin eyes in here before it becomes the Haymaker and Lionelt's Amazing Double Act echo chamber? We've been through this at ANI before. Even if wrongdoing had been found then, or the other times they tried to pull out the same diffs, that wouldn't be grounds to prosecute based on evidence that was over four months stale. This shouldn't be difficult: neither Haymaker or Lionelt is denying that Haymaker has been stalking me since he met me. They just think he should be exempt from the rules for God knows what reason. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, understand that I very much deny that I am wikihounding you. What I am pointing out is that your editing patterns are nearly the same as mine. If anything, your relationship with editors like Mamalujo, Geremia and Cloonmore is far more objecitonable than our present one is. If you consider my editing wikihounding, then you are in the same boat. - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already pointed out, this is just factually wrong. Your near-pathological need to make false claims about me at ANI and other noticeboards reflects poorly on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sampled your diff list at the top, Roscelese, and I don't see that many examples of "stalking". There's a reason "User contributions" are listed on userpages; it's a feature intended to be used. Also, if you take a complaint against another user to ANI, I'm afraid you'll have to expect your own edits to be scrutinised, too. It's not for you to say what is and isn't relevant at this board, and your comment "As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant" and similar, suggests to me that you have trouble understanding what ANI is for, and what harassment is. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    (edit conflict)So it's now considered acceptable user conduct to use one's account largely for the purpose of reverting one other editor? To follow them to completely unrelated articles solely in order to revert them, because they've disagreed with you in the past? To maintain this behavior for seven months? This is neither in the letter nor the spirit of WP:HOUND. As for my own conduct, I open it to scrutiny. Indeed, I have done so, and no wrong was found, so Haymaker's and Lionelt's repeated invocation of the same charge, which is now four months stale, smack rather of another form of harassment than a background check. Would you like to inspect my recent edits, given that the conduct I'm reporting is also recent? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accept that you have done EXACTLY what you are accusing me of and your only defense is that you think you haven't done it as recently? - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've rejected that false accusation every time you've tried to pin it on me, as should be obvious from my responses. Don't think that you can make people believe I am saying something by falsely asserting that I'm saying it. But you respond to diffs of your harassment of yesterday with "Look, I accused her of harassment four months ago" - not "she was found to have harassed," not "here is evidence from yesterday of her own stalking," but an unproven accusation from four months ago that you've been bringing up in every forum you can - that's not going to let you off. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You really must learn to stop putting things in quotes that are not quotes. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious that it's not a quote of something you've said. Have more faith in the intelligence of the readers. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You say there are not "that many examples". How many is enough? There are some real doozies in the list, good enough by themselves. Inane ones such as the Joseph O'Rourke series, in which there is no apparent thought given by Haymaker. Misguided ones such as the Abortion in Chile bit where the removed-and-then-restored Koch study gives a very flawed explanation of its statistical findings. In all of the diffs, Haymaker was absent from the article until Roscelese edited it. The substance of the edits is that Roscelese makes a change to an article and Haymaker sees the activity on her edit history, follows her there and throws a block in her path. That's hounding. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you call; AFD 1, AFD 2, AFD 3, women on the web, silent scream, SSM in the US, Schenck v. P-CNWNY, pro-life alliance, planned parenthood, Josh Brolin, homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, don't ask don' tell, emily's list, Christianity and abortion and circuit party, to mention some of the swath of articles that roscelese never edited before she followed me to them. If you think my edits constitute hounding, then without question hers do as well. - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bink - the Rourke example isn't a particularly good one. The edit I made was incorrect (the article at the time didn't source that claim, but it was later added). The issue there wasn't that Haymaker was wrong, but that he stalked me there. The Reader would be a better example - totally outside the content areas he normally edits, no attempt to discuss, no further attempt to edit article after reverting me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Resp to Lionelt) I think you are mistaken in all matters; firstly in understanding of the term "overriding" - which infers a specific reason for taking such actions, such as concern over continuing violation of policy or guideline on the part of the other editor, rather than rationalising each individual action as editorial decisions. Secondly, in that the quote notes that if such behaviours are accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" it says that "it may become a very serious matter" (my underlining) so without such instances (and I have suggested that it might be considered disruptive, anyway) it is still a serious matter. On the third issue of double standards, my non participation in the earlier complaint by Haymaker upon Roscelese cannot infer my opinion in that matter - but the fact that you were the only party other than the principals to comment then, and to condemn the actions of Roscelese then when you seek to defend Haymakers similar actions now suggests to me that it is not only the memory of your own previous interactions with Roscelese you seem to have been able to suppress.
    If it is decided that there should be an interaction ban on the part of Haymaker in respect of articles recently edited by Roscelese, I see no issue in also considering whether there should be a quid pro quo interaction ban on the same basis of Roscelese regarding Haymakers recent editing - any history of such infractions would certainly help determine such a case. In my experience (and I do have some) interaction bans are very nearly always mutual, to ensure that future disruption by having one party more advantaged than the other in any content dispute is not possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed article page interaction ban between Haymaker and Roscelese and others

    Since it is apparent that there are legitimate claims of wikihounding on the part of both accounts (and I am taking the position again that it is the perception that is important rather than the intent) in respect of the other, I propose that there be an indefinite ban on either party editing any article page which directly effects an edit by the other, regardless of whether there are intervening edits elsewhere by other contributors. I would also expand this ban to any editor who is apparently previously involved in these issues, since I feel there is a risk of a continuance of this dispute by "proxy" if not addressed. If there is consensus, I or someone can determine a wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion regarding proposed interaction ban

    This concept intrigues me, I have some questions and some concerns and figure it'd be best to air them out.

    A - I figure administrative pages would be exempt from this?
    B - How about talk pages?
    C - I've edited a lot of articles over the years, 3,947 to be exact, which of those couldn't Roscelese edit?
    D - How do we nominate other parties to this ban?
    E - Would there be a time cap?

    -Haymaker (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As proposed, only article pages. As for the rest, I would opine; Changing other peoples edits to talk pages is generally frowned upon, but discussions (civil, etc.) is to be encouraged unless it is apparent it is recruiting others to change the other editors contributions (i.e. the proxying question). Roscelese can edit any of those articles edited by you, but they cannot change any one of your edits (unless really old, possibly, after talkpage discussion?) and vice versa. You would make a request to ANI to review the edits of any party which appears to be conducting similar wikihounding and that editors relationship to both parties will be examined, and if there is consensus (and they are not blocked indefinitely) they could be added as parties - again Roscelese can bring the same complaint on any editor. No time cap, initially. If all named parties can work out an agreement then a suspension or lifting of the ban may be made, but I would think that if agreed such a ban would need to be in place for a minimum of three months before being suspended (if only to make apparent to both parties it is in their interests not to risk further sanction). I would also add that if both parties now agree to such a ban, and the wording of same, then there is no need for outside consensus. I would be happy to admin such a ban, and perhaps parties to the ban could nominate one sysop each to make the ban better transparent and fair. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, if you both agree to an interaction ban with it being reviewed by 3 admins then any issue about extending the ban to other parties would be addressed by the admins initially, only referring to ANI if there is not unanimous agreement between the sysops (in all other cases, only two admins need agree), LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ros has followed me to many AfDs and other administrative discussions to oppose my suggestions. Could she be barred from doing this in the future? - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that AfDs are listed publicly and also sorted by topic, and especially given that one of the AfDs you claim I followed you to was an AfD of an article I edited, I doubt you're going to be able to present enough evidence to justify this restriction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. I'd love it if Haymaker were forbidden to stalk and harass me, but I would make one suggestion for this interaction ban, without which I'd be slightly less eager to support it. Particularly because we edit in often-contentious topic areas, there should be a mechanism by which we can get a quick, uninvolved, and authoritative perspective on edits that we ourselves are forbidden to revert. So, for example, when Haymaker makes this edit filled with POV and synth, or I make this mistaken edit based on the absence of a citation for the fact in the article, Haymaker and I should both be able to come to an admin (you, LessHeard??) who will moderate the ban and decide if the edit should or should not stand. (Rather than a noticeboard or RfC for every little thing, which would be the other alternative - I rule out 3O because of the strong likelihood that the third opinion would be provided by a partisan of one party or another.) An interaction ban would be super but there would need to be something in place to make sure that articles aren't damaged as a side-effect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I wonder if articles created by one or the other of us might just be made off-limits. If Haymaker adds a frivolous tag to an article I created, the current terms of the interaction ban would stop me removing it, but it's also an attempt to wipe my eye by making my article look bad. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Queries regarding other parties actions should be directed at one of the supervising admins in the first instance, who may then intercede directly or refer it to the others for consensus - or to the article talkpage where there is the possibility of getting uninvolved third party opinion. Any edit to an article that was created by the other party, other than typo correction or reverting vandalism, would be considered as directly changing a previous edit and is not permissible - however, creating pov forks that the other editor could not challenge would also be considered as hostile to the interaction ban (indeed, any edit made anywhere in article space which could be considered as being inflammatory to the other party would not be allowed). However, it would be hoped that the supervision of the ban would not become a shopping list of complaints - the chances of getting admins to ride such a merryground would be severely compromised. Should a voluntary topic ban be placed, the terms would be open to variation and addition (or reduction!) as circumstances dictate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly - I don't anticipate that either of us will have to resort to this means often, since I don't go about making edits specifically to annoy Haymaker and hopefully he will behave the same (ie. I don't go about changing "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion," since I know he likes the encyclopedia to reflect the former wording, and I hope that he won't take advantage of the interaction ban to continue pushing the term "pro-family"). But I did feel there should be some established way to deal with problematic edits that we can't revert, particularly on low-visibility articles where they are unlikely to be reverted by another editor. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ros, you do go about changing things from "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion" and you have been on a crusade to strike the term "pro-family" from this website. At present the vast majority of WP articles, templates and categories describe persons and organization that oppose abortion as "pro-life". Ros has attempted to change many of them to "anti-abortion". I want to make sure that I am not entering into a compact that would allow her to make all of these revisions while myself and others likely to monitor these article are locked out of opposing her. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not true, and you should be ashamed of yourself for adding one more false claim to the laundry list of false accusations you regularly level at me. Would you like to prove it with a diff? One would suffice. It wouldn't even have to be recent. I doubt you'll find it, since I've always maintained that people and organizations are to be described as "pro-life." I also doubt that any user who isn't here to push a POV will object to the removal of "pro-family," which is a meaningless propaganda term, though Haymaker's comment and past behavior do indeed seem to reflect a desire to push it which could become problematic. Thoughts, LessHeard? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to include Binksternet and PhGustaf as third parties to this proposal. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have never seen that, and I have helped set up and admin a couple of interaction bans. As it is apparently standard for imposed interaction bans, I think having an agreed less strict ban between parties is possibly more enticing for the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks.

    Yesterday I removed a line from the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, which claimed one of his books contained a lexicon larger than the combined works of Shakespeare. The reference was a Portuguese dictionary definition for "lexicon" which stated Shakespeare's works contained 15.000 unique words. I took that as original research and removed it. The same article had a list of characters for the book Géa, which already exists in the article about the book itself, so I removed that as well. Today I noticed my edits had been undone by an IP that has edited the same articles a large number of times. The claim about the lexicon was also in the article Géa so I removed it there on the same grounds. The IP repeatedly undid my edits so after my third revert I stepped away and warned the user they were edit warring and risked violating WP:3RR. Then, looking at the Recent Changes page I saw that same IP (or one very close to it) had edited an article I had created. All they did was arbitrarily remove content. As I went through the list (which is in my user page), I saw several blanking edits by very similar IPs.

    It's quite obvious that this user has serious article ownership issues. The user seems to be Mr. Baptista himself (who actively monitors his page on the Portuguese Wikipedia) or a student of his, as stated in Talk:Cláudio_César_Dias_Baptista.

    Diffs from IP vandalism to articles I started: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]

    Diff for IP sock: [54] (IP user mentions they are the article creator), [55] (same claim of article creation, this time from User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista)

    The user/IPs in question: User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista, User: 187.14.110.146, User: 187.13.52.45, User: 187.13.104.137, User: 187.13.34.128, User: 187.14.98.117, User: 187.14.99.197, User: 187.14.124.193, User: 187.13.56.232, User: 187.14.121.59, User: 187.14.96.239, User: 187.13.112.123.

    Any assistance or help in dealing with this would be appreciated. I was considering doing a cleanup of both articles, but it's difficult when you're being hounded by a dynamic IP. XXX antiuser eh? 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they didn't stop there. Here's more blanking, also on articles where I've had major participation: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] XXX antiuser eh? 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to put this together, antiuser. Looks like pretty clear wikistalking to me. I think a softblock of the 187.12.0.0/14 range is warranted. It's fairly big (around 260,000 IP addresses), so maybe just a few hours to get their attention? — Satori Son 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I received an e-mail from En Wiki about this matter few minutes ago. The pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa were not of my authorship but, as it's told in the discussion of the first page, by one of my readers and later perfectioned by many different IPs. Mr. Antiuser has not a personal name to care, but I have and sign here and in Pt Wiki ever with my own name. If you see the list of pages created by Mr. Antiuser and the ones where he collaborated, you will note that there is a political polarization in that work, which polarization is "tropicalism", "socialism" and "comunism", the opposite of my belief. I think that polarization is the cause of his insistent deletion in page Cláudio César Dias Baptista of the information about my lexicon in opus Géa, from my authorship. That information is authentic, important and although the quantity of words in a vocabulary is not a proof of the quality of a book, it's a valid indication. The Dicionário Aurélio do not 'states' by itself, but present, in the enter "Léxicon" a citation of the book of Camilo Castelo Branco where the information about WS lexicon (15,000 words) is written. My lexicon in Géa is of 30,000 words and can be confirmed by its reading. The same book of Camilo Castelo Branco is mentioned in the page of his name, in En Wiki. That is the complete information which the reader of my books who created the page of my name in En Wiki put in that page and was deleted by Mr. Antiuser. I work in a computer that is accessed by many people, some of them are readers of my books, so, it's possible that one or several of them undid the edits of Mr. Antiuser. In the link '65' you will see that the author of the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista entered a section in my own computer and I myself signed the entering to confirm that the reader was in the same computer with me and that I put my e-mail mailto:[email protected] there to everybody who would like to know more be able to contact myself directly and I would give then the e-mail of that reader, the author of that page, Rafael Konzen, who didn't want to expose his own e-mail in En Wiki pages because of the possibility of spam - more transparency from us is impossible. I also have many readers who access the books of my authorship via my site www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, 'CCDB Livros' section for on-line reading. It's also possible that one or more of them undid the editings of Mr. Antiuser. I affirm that I was not the author of these modifications; everything I do in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki I sign with my own name and only when logged in.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that this edit left on my talk page this morning has some of the same English idiosyncrasies as Mr. Baptista's post above, even though he said he always signs with his own name. I'm not even going to address the ludicrous claim that there's political bias in my contributions to WP. Mr. Baptista uses the fact that his book has an article on Wikipedia as a promotional point [63], but at the same time he hinders the collaborative nature of WP by effectively owning these articles and holding them hostage. I'm probably not going to touch those articles again, but hope that an admin might be able to do something about this. XXX antiuser eh? 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In full disclosure, there was an SPI case about this in the past two days. I protected the Claudio article and one other, but I held off on a rather wide IP block. If you guys feel it's warranted, though, go for it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I submitted that before I realised how wide their IP range is. Might have not been the best way to go about it, even though it is sockpuppetry just the same. XXX antiuser eh? 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still support a range block, but I'm going offline for a bit so it probably shouldn't be me that implements it. — Satori Son 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From my sixty six years old I invested ten in writting the opus Géa and almost other ten in creating the site where it is presented for on-line reading. My name is known in Brazil and in many countries not only because of that work but also as an audio and electronics expert, the creator of the musical group Os Mutantes, a musician and a special musical instrument manufacturer. Anybody with that name, or even with no name but to whom somebody created a page in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki, will monitor that page, specially if its content is modified and the page starts to produce misinformation. The cause for me to create an account in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki was, is and will continue to be only to monitor these pages. You who reads me, if you have a page with your personal name in Wiki would do the same, perhaps. I don't need promotion, in fact, I avoid it, as you may see by the history of my life - I am known as the "Hiden Mutante", because I never liked to promote myself and to be seen on stage (although I played there also with the other Mutantes) in the media. People write books about my life and write pages in Wiki also. This is not the good thing for me you may perhaps think. If you read Aeneid from Virgil, you will see how he describes the Fame: A monster with one thousand eyes. I think the same as him about Fame, so many years after his time. The only promotion I need for the book Géa is the book itself and its content. If you do not think I am doing 'promotion' here, I would like to kindly invite you to read that book, which is published by myself (in Portuguese) in my site, also created by myself, http://ccdb.gea.nom.br. Then you will have a better perspective about the meaning of this discussion, the importance of the work Géa and the moral of my person. The "75" link above in Mr. Antiuser last paragraph leads to the page of my site where I present the opus Géa. I inserted there the information that the page Géa is published in En Wiki and that this is an international recognition, and that is not promotion, that is the simple truth. If you consider that that information is promotion for me, I would say that it's promotion also for En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has nothing to do with your stature or status as a person, the importance of your work or any politics at all. It's simply about Wikipedia policy. It's within your right to monitor the page and to edit it when you believe it's necessary. However, repeatedly refusing to follow policy or even acknowledge the policy cited as the reason for an edit and then vandalising articles by the editor who performed the edit you oppose does nothing but disrupt and take away from the Wikipedia project. Please also be mindful that your actions in articles related to you and your work might constitute a conflict of interest, as it can be difficult to maintain a neutral point-of-view when you are that close to the subject. XXX antiuser eh? 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion 'should have nothing to do' but in fact it unhappily does with my person, because you, Antiuser, suggested that I was the person who edited the articles Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa and you are insinuating that I am such a person, when you say 'repeatdly refusing to follow policy'. I repeat that I was not the person who edited these articles and that my only purpose here in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki is to monitor them.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you say so, I will assume good faith and leave it be. However, I do find it uncanny that all of those IPs and your own account mostly focus on the same articles. Also, as you suggest, I looked deeper into your site and actually saw a reference to your pupil who created the articles on you and your book, one Rafael Konzen. On your website it's stated he lives in Manaus, yet all of the IPs that have performed the edits which I refer to are in the same range as the one who created the article - which is in Rio de Janeiro state, not Amazonas. Also, the same grammar/spelling idiosyncrasies are present in messages written by both your account and the IPs. That was what left me, as they say in Portuguese, 'with a flea behind my ear'. XXX antiuser eh? 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you only monitor the pages, but now you are alleging that I am attacking your articles with political motivations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Please explain what political motivation I have for removing a piece of original research from an article which another editor whom I've never had any interactions with has nominated for deletion? This is a serious accusation you are making and unless you provide diffs to back up your claim, I will take it as a personal attack. XXX antiuser eh? 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Rafael Konzen lives in Manaus. He informed me that he created the page in his computer, but you know that computers are mobile things. What I know is that he didn't create the page in my computer. When he visited my house (distance from Manaus to Rio de Janeiro State is not a problem today), I logged in En Wiki and he wrote an answer in the talk page of Cláudio César Dias Baptista page, which I signed up to show everybody that there is a person who created that page who is not myself.

    About the 'personal attack' you say that you can take my claim about your political motivation, I could see also as a 'personal attack' your suggestions that I am the person who made the attacks against the pages you mentioned. My claim that there are political motivations behind your movement against the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa is based in the fact that the pages you created in En Wiki shine with political colors and movements as "tropicalismo" which is in certain way a synonim of "socialismo" and even of "comunismo", easy to be noted by Brazilian people, but difficult to be noted by people of other countries. It's not necessary to have a flea behind one ear to see that your motivation is not constructive but destructive and that there is not 'original research' but real proofs in the section you deleted from the pages under discussion here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide references of where you think I have acted with political motivations. I am doing nothing but acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and you are accusing me of being a communist? Give me a break. By the way, I grew up in Brazil, so any cultural subtleties that you believe might be lost on me, be assured they are not. XXX antiuser eh? 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is an extract of the page created by yourself, Antiuser, named Paulinho da Viola: 'One step further, the leaders of the Tropicália movement - Caetano Veloso, his sister Maria Bethânia, Gilberto Gil, Gal Costa, Tom Zé and Jorge Ben a.k.a Jorge Benjor - got into trouble with the right wing dictators of Brazil in the 60's and 70's and some of them - Veloso and Gil - ended up incarcerated and then exiled. The MPB (Musica Popular Brasileira) movement that followed later is deeply respectful of the samba tradition it is rooted in, but is also politically active. ' - that is just one of the motives which led me to think that there are political motivations behind your deletions in the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa. The whole of your (meritable) opus in Wikipedia created also the clear idea that there are these political motivations behind your actions in these pages. I saw many people who were not born in Brazil like us constructivelly working during the growing up of the two pages - if you read the contributions to both pages you will find the names of these people. But it's painful for me, a Brazilian, a person who worked so many years to see our Language, the beautiful Portuguese Language, grow up with a work done in the best 'vernáculo', Géa, with really twice the WS lexicon, see the page of that work being deconstructed (!) exactly by a... Brazilian, who justifies that action behind the 'policy' of En Wiki!Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To use another Portuguese proverb, you're trying to find hairs on an egg. I'll withdraw from this conversation as I believe there's enough evidence of personal attacks and sockpuppetry for admins to take whatever actions they deem appropriate. I ask that you please refrain from making baseless personal attacks and read up on Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. XXX antiuser eh? 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, you withdraw, Mr. Antiuser. Now... if not the great question, not for you, but to our coleagues and the administrators of En Wiki, here is perhaps a significative question: Why just a Brazilian (Mr. Antiuser) is so occupied in deconstruct the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa about another Brazilian (myself), pages which were accepted and beautifully perfectioned by persons of other countries, who didn't find anything in these pages against any En Wiki's policy? Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You leave me no choice but to reply. You stated not long ago that you always post under your username. What about this then? An IP of the same range that you just claimed isn't you is making the exact same argument. Please stop making personal attacks and using sockpuppets to enforce your point of view. XXX antiuser eh? 17:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You withdrew byt I didn't. Here I see you again doing personal attacks against me, when you say that the IP 'of the same range' as mine wrote the same argument than I. Can you understand that 'same range' is not 'same IP'? And can you understand that I have many admirers, pupils, readers, all with access to En Wiki and which can read English, including my arguments, and also write their own comments utilizing the same or similar arguments? If the discussion is about a certain theme, of course the arguments will be similar! The number of persons who does the same argument is similar to the number of persons who vote for a politician - the vote is the same but the persons are not. You distorts the facts, saying that I am doing personal attacks against you, but the truth is exactly the contrary when you insist that I am the person who write all these entries in En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The ip has also been adding irrelevant statements to the William Shakespeare and (bizarrely) William Shakespeare's religion page. BTW, it's not difficult or clever to have a bigger lexicon that Shakespeare if you just pile up words. It is not unusual for editors to concentrate on areas in which they have a specialist interest or knowledge. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Paul Barlow: Do you know the book Géa to say that it's a 'pile of words'? Please read it first, than do your comments based in facts. It's easy to pile words, but it's not to create twelve 250 pages volumes and a dictionary with 1,000 pages, as I did when I wrote Géa. The book is there in my site, http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br - section CCDB Livros - to be read on-line. There you may also see the opinions of many readers. In the same site you will see links to reportings in important Brazilian magazines and many of these reportings copied (with authorization of the source) to my site. Your comment is one of those that anybody can do, because it's ever easier to underestimate things which you don't know than to expose a solid argument, based in facts, which you would have to invest your time to know. In fact, you do not know the book and is doing a mere superficial and ill-informed comment.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has now created the sockpuppet account User:William T. Johannes to push his POV (along with his IPsocks) on the article deletion discussions. They have also added the lexicon information to a lot of pages relating to Os Mutantes. XXX antiuser eh? 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Psychoanalysis has, perhaps, a name for people who show your behaviour, Mr. Antiuser. You can find by yourself what name it is, if that name really exist. As I'm not an expert in psychoanalysis, I will not write that name here, or you would say that I am doing a personal attack. In fact I am just reverting the personal attack you are doing in this page and in many others of En Wiki, an attack that you're doing perhaps because, for you, 'it's forbidden' to have a lexicon twice the WS lexicon, as it's forbidden to exist a Brazilian 'Pai da Aviação' - Santos Dumont. Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets

    Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cláudio César Dias Baptista‎ has confirmed Mr. Baptista's use of sockpuppets to fake a consensus on the AfDs for both his articles. XXX antiuser eh? 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • The investigations may say anything, but the Truth is other: I didn't use any sockpuppets to fake anything. As the theme of this destructive page is exhausted, as Mr. Antiuser is who he revealed to be and as I have constructive things to do (mainly writting new books), this is my last entering here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Danielalex36

    User vandalized three biographical articles and made false claims (including incest) to promote the non-notable article of the nonexistent person with false references that he/she created, and has only been edited by one user, him/her. Said was available for reading by people who might not have checked alleged citation and said might have been taken with them, them a possibility of being anyone, partners, investors, etc for redistribution via mouth or etc. Damaging to New York Jets corporation and Johnson & Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please provide some diff links? Thank you. — Satori Son 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429454686
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429455104
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429770617
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429770661
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Lea_Johnson_Richards&diff=prev&oldid=429422438
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Lea_Johnson_Richards&diff=prev&oldid=430751553
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429425276
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430694843
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430699293
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoire-Eleanore_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430697878
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoire-Eleanore_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=432828328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After confirming that the person is not referred to in the references given I have deleted Victoire-Eleanore Johnson as a blatant hoax. I'd like some other admins to confirm this, but I thought it best to ensure we did no harm, while we are checking. The editor involved has made no recent contributions, so I did not block, but notified them of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. None of the references mention the person named, and a search finds only WP mirrors and Twitter/blog/social-network type sites - no reliable source for anything said here. The use of false references says to me that this is not just a new contributor who does not understand WP:Verifiability, it is deliberate deceit. Danielalex36 (talk) has returned to editing today, but has not responded to DGG's invitation to comment here. Unless he provides a good explanation, I think a block is in order. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lying down game and persistent vandalism due to media interest / fad

    Lying down game is getting plenty of attention due to its presence in the media and the Planking fad. It is getting a large amount of advert spam, drive by vandalism (both of the fake information and random profanity variety). Given that it is just myself and the bots watching the article at the moment, could we get the article protected against edits by IP and non-confirmed editors? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi'd for 2 weeks. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As fads go, surely this is among the lamest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If planking was done while inebriated that would be excusable, but doing it while sober really pulls the other one.--Blackmane (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the one about the guy who did this on the edge of a building and then fell. He went from a plank to a slab. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree! I like it a lot when people die because they did something stupid, too. Wow, we're really good, superior people, aren't we? Kudos on living! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    {{{1}}}
    I think he went from a plank to stiffer than a board. Thank you evolution! I also took the liberty of wrapping your comment in small, Bugs --Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please lift page protection on Santorum (neologism)

    Editing at the page has been orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu, launched an edit war, and at his third revert (against 3 different editors) spammed this noticeboard, and BLPN with a complaint, which was ignored at BLPN and dismissed, with some concerns expressed about the Avanu's behaviour, here. Fastily [protected the article at the request of an editor who, as far as I can see, has never edited or had anything to do with it.

    In this discussion at the article talk page, Avanu received unanimous opposition to his edit, including from those on his side of the RfC discussion. I and another editor asked Fastily 9 hours ago to lift page protection, and our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place. An edit request for Avanu's edit to be reverted has not been acted on for 6 hours. Done 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Discussion at this article is robust but orderly and, amazingly, good faith collaboration from all sides means a consensus about the way forward seems to be crystalising. There has been no editwarring until Avanu started his nonsense yesterday. Would someone please lift page protection? We don't need it to protect us from one disruptive editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for reducing to semi-protection, Martin. Would you please consider lifting protection altogether, because one of the prominent contributers is an IP, and the article is not being excessively vandalised or disrupted by new or IP editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure if I should remove that "resolved" tick up there. 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The information above has several inaccuracies, and really accuses me of bad faith editing, using terms like "orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu" and "spammed". In addition, the "unanimous opposition" comment is also inaccurate. Reo argued that other things were higher priority, and Tarc and Collect made statements that showed they agreed that bias is present. The sentence which has "our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place" is *ALSO* inaccurate because I only made a case for continuing page protection, NOT a defense of my edit. In short, a very biased and inaccurate picture was painted in order to get an admin to intervene on this again. If we're going to work on this together, editors cannot do this. -- Avanu (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about opposition to your edit, not your stance. As for "keeping the page protection in place" = "keeping your edit in place", I wasn't implying you said that, I indicating that they went hand in hand, that one was the consequence of the other. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Martin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why doesn't that IP guy just register an account? -- Avanu (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because she doesn't want to. You're all reminded, yet again, that if you discuss me on ANI, you're obligated to notify me on my talk. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that you've been blocked 4 times in the last 6 weeks, maybe you should just check ANI on a frequent basis and see if your "name" has turned up yet again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misstate my block log. I've only been blocked twice in the last 6 weeks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, gee, you're right.[64] Blocked twice, and in each case a second entry to shut you up for the duration of the block. Thanks for clarifying that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, turns out that IP editors are held to a higher standard than those of you with accounts. For example, had I exhibited the same degree of incivility towards you that you've expressed at me, I'd already be blocked. How 'bout you drop it, okay? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha. As you noted on your own talk page,[65] IP's actually can get away with a lot of stuff that registered users can't. That's the real reason IP's won't create real user accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, did you even read that diff before you decided on what I'd said? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you lighten up just a little? This wasn't really a discussion of *you*, but IP contributors being blocked from editing there. It seems like each time you weigh in, there's a hint of frustration/anger in your tone. To me, it looks like the editors above were just trying to do you a favor. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were discussing IP editors generally, you wouldn't have used the phrase "that IP guy." Just saying. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that IP's contributions, and the amount of disruption it is causing across the project, it's either already been banned in some other form (or subject to a long/indef block) or it is going to receive that sort of remedy in the near future to prevent further disruption. Best to keep an eye on it before it causes anymore exhaustion for (or disruption to) the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to point out that calling an IP "it" is inappropriate, after all there is still a person (a self-identified "she"). Now, if Watson started editing under an IP, that would be a different story. Personally I think Watson would be a great help at the Reference Desk. -- Atama頭 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want to call up IBM, or should I? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly would you propose then, some PC gibberish like "xe" ? Personally, I have always referred to IP editors as "it", and will continue to do so; if they wish to have a more cozy pronoun, then they can create an account. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of "he" or "she" or "xe" or "it", how about "ip"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with he, she, or xe. I'm not okay with "it" or words that aren't actually pronouns, and I'll consider it uncivil if you intentionally refer to me incorrectly in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an online encyclopedia not a chat battlefield, your contributions are all the same, battle battle battle - do you intend to add any content or are you going to continue in the same vein? As a contributor currently you are a net loss, nothing but disruption at multiple locations would describe your contributions so far. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been very appreciative of the editor from an IP address' contributions. The above comment sounds very belittling and not in the spirit of civilly editing the encyclopedia. Gacurr (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be ok to archive and restart this thread since its really been little but off-topic comments since the beginning? -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think that this article needs to remain protected, for the moment at least. 24.177.120.138 (talk)

    I agree (and 24 and I haven't been agreeing so much on the talk page lately); I'm no admin, but I think the page should probably be protected until the RfC concludes, much as I hate to say it. It's political silly season, it's a controversial topic, and there's no shortage of editors who Act To Do What's Obviously Right without understanding consensus (or too often, bothering to actually read policy). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Motaros

    So this user has a history of jumping between accounts. The user was blocked while using User:M4pnt, but was then unblocked with the promise of only using one account. After a while the user moved on to User:Mtlv0 anyway, saying that he forgot the password to the old account. Fair enough. The user was blocked, then explained this and subsequently unblocked. During the time this account was blocked, however, the user made a new one: User:C0un+5.

    So this user not only moved to a new account yet again, but also did it while the old account was still blocked. What is going on is not only account jumping despite being told not to several accounts back, but also socking.

    The history of old accounts can be found here. Nymf hideliho! 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As the user who started the second SPI regarding this user, I feel I should comment. This is becoming a problem. This user generally ignores Wikipedia policy, or takes a very long time to accept it. They refuse to take the time to read policies linked to them, requiring another user (lately, me) to quote, paraphrase, and so on. Even then they will start editing properly on some articles, while continuing their non-policy-based edits on other articles. Although they claim that they won't keep creating new accounts and moving on, they do so anyway (especially in this case, where they were blocked for a couple days, and immediately went on to create a new account). I think both Nymf and I have put in more than a reasonable effort in trying to help this editor improve their editing, but it's come to a point where the effort isn't yielding the necessary results.
    I hate to say it, but this user just isn't interested in becoming a better editor, and is becoming more and more of a disruption. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whip out the hammer, whack the mother****** and deposit him directly into /dev/null! No Miranda warning, enough of the three-strikes-you're-out shit; first offense, BAM, into /dev/null you go! —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lewisistheone1991

    This new user is creating season team pages for college men's basketball teams for the 2010–11 season. That's fine by me. However, he keeps copying and pasting existing articles (ex: 2010–11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team) into "new" articles that use hyphens (2010-11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team). He's done this to tons of team articles, and I've told him multiple times to stop doing that. I have no idea why he's doing it; all I can surmise is he somehow thinks that's what you're supposed to do when the hyphenated version doesn't exist. I've had to manually move or redirect every single one of his article creations. Furthermore, I gave him a pretty stern warning back on June 4th to stop these practices. Not only has he not responded to anything I've written to him, he hasn't responded to anyone's concerns that have been left on his talk page. Since he clearly doesn't intend to stop duplicating articles into incorrectly titled pages, nor will he respond to inquiries/comments left on his talk page, is it unreasonable to enact a short-term block to try and get his attention? I've run out of patience with this user. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see any incorrect edits of his since your June 4 notice. Maybe you did explain it adequately. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it again with this, when the correct article was already made and in place (ironically by Lewisistheone1991). Jrcla2 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible WP:NLT on Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk page

    Resolved
     – RockSound is SockBound

    RockSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA on the (somewhat infamous) Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This editor is somewhat aggressive in editing style. A recent comment is close to, if not over, the line for legal threats. I've requested on the article talk page and on their user talk page to strike the comment. Their response was polite, but reinforced their point. I would appreciate an admin taking a look at this and offering their thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure quite how that discussion got so out of hand to be discussing if libel action could be taken over it or not. But that comment does not look like a legal threat, given the explanation. Best to just disengage and devolve that particular conflict. Berean was on a tangent. RockSound was responding to that. FWIW nothing in the article seems to me to be libellous, so there isn't much to worry about on that score. although, it would be nice for RockSound to specifically note he doesn't mean it as a threat of legal action --Errant (chat!) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Errant, you are correct. And I expressly stated on my Talk page that I was merely discussing a point of law and never intended any threat of legal action. I never even imagined that someone would try to interpret it that way. RockSound (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebuttal First of all, I am not an SPA as Ravensfire claims. Anyone who does not share the pro-guilt view is immediately deemed an SPA, harassed and constantly hauled before ANI in a most aggressive manner by the pro-guilt editors who control the article. Mr. Wales has tried to intervene in this article to sort out some of the problems. I posted some of his comments today on the Talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&action=edit&section=14 It is a horrible situation there with a dozen or more editors already blocked on trumped up charges, all victims being from the side that does not share the pro-guilt view.

    This claim that I made a legal threat is not valid. I am an attorney and merely clarified a totally erroneous statement made by someone to the effect that nobody could be sued for calling Amanda Knox and Sollecito murderers under US law. That is false information. If a person is falsely painted in a bad light, there can be a cause of action under US law. That was my only point. I most certainly was not making a legal threat. I made that very clear to Revensfire before he/she filed this ANI complaint.

    To haul this up to ANI is just more of the ongoing harassment that any editor faces who does not share the pro-guilt view. It appears that there are two pro-guilt websites that some of these pro-guilt editors are involved in and taking their direction from. An aggressive PR campaign painting Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito as guilty of murder, before the criminal proceedings have been completed, is being orchestrated by these two websites, and they have their tentacles into this article via some of the pro-guilt editors now in control of the article.

    I do hope that Mr. Wales will return and help us in sorting out this situation. His help thus far has been beneficial, but much more help is needed. RockSound (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your kind words and lovely labeling of any editor opposed to your POV as "pro-guilt", an accusation utterly without merit or evidence. Your response on your talk page dismissed anything not from an administrator, which left me with no other choice. As has been requested before here, I would hope for uninvolved admins to watch the page and actively work to mitigate the hostile tone (see RockSounds response) that seems to be returning after a week or so of helpful dialogue and cooperative editing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravensfire, I don't appreciate the frivolous allegations of a legal threat. It is very clear that I was talking in generalities on a point of US law, not about taking any legal action myself. And I explained that to you on my Talk page. Here was the dialogue:

    I am requesting you strike out this comment on the talk page. Making or implying legal actions in an attempt to influence other editors is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I ask you to immediately strike your comment out. Ravensfire (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Unless you are an administrator, then I must decline your request as being misplaced. I made no legal threat whatsoever. I merely stated that the editor who asserted that there could be no cause of action over this article was wrong. I expressed my legal opinion as an attorney in the US that he is wrong that defamatory statements against Knox and Sollecito are not actionable. You should be able to grasp the fact that that is entirely different from saying that you intend to sue someone, which is what a legal threat is. I do not represent anyone in this case, nor have I ever said that I do or that I even know anyone connected with this case, so it is not even possible for me to make a legal threat on their behalf. I am simply expressing my opinion on the state of the law.

    If it is alright for an editor to give false information that no legal action could ever be taken over this article even if Knox and Sollecito are falsely depicted as murderers, it is certainly alright for someone who actually knows the state of the law on this matter to say that he is incorrect, as a professional opinion. RockSound (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC0)

    I am not an administrator, I am an editor like everyone else here. My hope was that you would see the request and strike your comment in hopes of the debate remaining somewhat peaceful. Alas, I was mistaken. Ravensfire (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


    Would you prefer that the false information about that state of the law of defamation in the US stand unrebutted? How does that help anyone? People need to realize that when you are writing about living people, the laws of defamation apply, which is what the BLP policies are aimed at fostering. The editor who wrote that no one could be sued for calling Knox and Sollecito murderers could not have been more wrong, and his false assertions need correction. RockSound (talk) 23:24, 10 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Side-stepping the main issue here (because I'd rather jump in front of a bus than start editing the MOMK article), I don't get why RockSound repeatedly entreats Jimbo to somehow resolve the dispute at the article. Especially in the last AN/I thread about RockSound and MOMK, xhe seemed to be under the impression that Jimbo controls all Wikipedia content and he is the final arbiter of the dispute. Frankly, I find it a little unnerving as it goes against everything that I (and I hope others) believe about Wiki. There is neither an individual authority nor a "mommy" who will listen to tattling. The articles should be a product of the community; no disrespect to Mr. Wales, but I feel like we can resolve this without him placing his rubber stamp upon it. Chillllls (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The legalese-speak of Rock's original comment,[66] sounds like an intent to intimidate, hence it falls under the "legal threat" category. If he had simply issued a friendly caution against blatantly calling someone "a murderer" (as opposed to "convicted of murder", which is factual), i.e., to wit, e.g., in lieu, by reporting that there is in fact a risk of libel suit in the U.S., that would have been a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there is some unfortunate backstory to the repeated "appeal to Jimbo" seen in this topic area; the original open letter and the gleeful reception from activist blogs and a local Seattle media outlet. As for Rocksound, this user has been a resounding net negative to the Kercher article so far; we have repeatedly had to come to An/I to discuss this antagonistic, fierce behavior, now coupled with legal threats. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he cited anything to support the claim that an American could be sued for calling the convicts "murderers"? Or are we supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To claim that anything I said constitutes an intent to intimidate someone is outrageous. I responded with what you call 'legalese-speak" because if you look at the comment that I was reponsing to, it was specifically about points of law on defamation in the US. It is really stretching things beyond all reason to say that responding to a post on the legal requirements on defamation in the US constitutes "an attempt to intimidate". There have been many, many comments on this same Talk page about how certain comments about Rudy Guede (the man favored by the pro-guilt clique in control)could be seen as defamation, yet no one got hauled up to ANI over it. Double standards once again. RockSound (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments continue to contain a threatening tone. I'd be interested to see an actual citation in support of your claim that someone could be sued for calling a convicted murderer "a murderer". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch out for that bus Chilllls was warning about! You're about to get run over by the pro-Knox clique! Ravensfire (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not in either "clique", as I have no opinion on guilt or innocence of the convicted persons in that case. But do know that there have been many editors attempting to make the wikipedia article operate as an advocacy for the convicted, and as the notes to Wales indicates, they are very well-practiced at various levels of intimidation. Rock's threats are par for the course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cared to follow the extensive discussion, a key point is that under the Italian Constitution they are currently deemed "not guilty". That is all cited on the Talk page, but the information has been kept out of the article. I am sorry if you find my comments "threatening". I am merely responding to the legal issues by typing at my key board. Any "intimidation" or "threatening tone" you detect is purely your own subjective experience, not my intention. RockSound (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested enough to read every last word you've written, I'd just like to see (or at least to be made aware) that you have citations for your claims and that you don't expect us to just take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations to the Italian Constitution are on the Talk page, as well as the discussions about the current status of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as "not guilty" under the law of Italy. If you won't bother to read the Talk page to get the gist of my comment in its proper context then I am sorry, I cannot help you. RockSound (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming they weren't actually convicted of murder? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure: I don't know if it is appropriate for the "accused' to request that a complaint be closed, but this one is particularly frivolous and is merely more harassment intended to waste my time and drive me away from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. The pro-guilt editors have been conducting a fierce drive to get people banned or blocked on trumped up charges or just so tied up with ANI, or just so frustrated by deleting and deleting and deleting their work, that virtually only the pro-guilt editors are allowed to edit the article. This complaint is just more of the same. I rest my case now. Do with me what you will. I will not be returning to discuss this, since I have to get back to my real job's work. Thank you and Good Night. RockSound (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold the phone there, Mr. Lawyer. Your uncited claim that "...there is a cause of action in the US for defamation over this article" still stands. Until you either provide a citation or retract it, you're not off the hook here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire opened by saying he/she'd "appreciate an admin taking a look...and offering their thoughts" as to whether RockSound should strike a comment that Ravensfire had chosen to characterize as "close to, if not over the line for legal threats." An admin, Errant, duly complied, taking a look and offering the thought that it doesn't look like a legal threat, etc. RockSound has assured that it isn't, and explained why it isn't. Nuff said. Writegeist (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the diff in isolation, I can see how it could be construed as something close to an NLT problem. While you did not threaten any legal action yourself, RockSound, your comment strongly implied that the current state of the article was such that someone (an editor? WMF?) could face legal trouble. Given you are very much a "pro-innocence" editor, it could be construed as an attempt to chill the input of those who are not advocates for Kerchner. It seems that was not your intent and taken in wider context I can buy that explanation. But it would probably be best to just go back and clarify that statement to be more reflective of your intended meaning. Resolute 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    koff!"Advocates for Knox", perhaps? pablo 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. Epic fail! Resolute 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right. See my comment further down.TMCk (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Please stop hurling one accusation after another at me ( and the other editors who don't share your POV).

    I have returned even though I really am gone for the night to do my real work, to say that I did comply with Resolute's suggestion about editing the comment on the article Talk page to make it clear that I did not intend any threat. Here is what I wrote, which explains a lot more than the original very brief statement:


    Italian law applies to determine the status of the defendants. Currently, they are innocent of any crime. If they are currently presented as murderers or guilty of a crime that could be viewed as defamatory under US law. Even if some sources present them that way, it should be noted that their current status is innocent and all information about them otherwise correct. The claim above that "it does not matter that an appeal is ongoing" and that "there can be no valid civil or criminal recourse against the author" who presents them as murderers is wrong.


    I also added a note below on the Talk page to make it doubly clear that I intended no threat or legal action. I hope that is sufficient. Now I really do have to go. Good night and thank you. RockSound (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Rock added the "not true" after I had posted the preceding. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    As you say. I'm a lawyer and an administrator, both of which is mostly irrelevant to the following: I don't like RockSound's edit because I believes it carries an implication that anyone contributing to the article could be liable for part or all of the defamation that RockSound Esq. opined existed. I think that has a chilling effect on people being willing to edit the article, benefiting her side (whichever that is, I can't recall off hand) on the question of guilt. Certainly it does not make people more anxious to edit the article. I would respectfully urge my colleague at the bar to consider well what he knows to be true because is is something a lawyer always watches: a legal pronouncement can have an intimidating effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Brother, as you wish. I have deleted my revised comments entirely from the Talk page relating to this Complaint, including my post above starting with "Italian law applies...". Thank you for your advice. Now I really am done for the night. Good night. RockSound (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was getting worried, I haven't seen an ANI thread about this article for a few days and I was wondering what was wrong. -- Atama頭 07:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Rocksound is still under the mistaken impression that Jimbo has some sort of final say over what happens here. The last time he was brought to ANI, only a couple of weeks ago, he kept going on and on about wanting to get Jimbo onto the article again as if doing so will silence the critics. Personally I find that comments of this sort come close to a chilling effect on discussion. The other thing is that Rocksound, please use edit summaries more. I had a look at the MoMK history and the last 20 edits of yours had no edit summary whatsoever. Anyone wishing to see what was previously written has to open each revision up. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The style and content of RockSound's editing (especially the "pro-guilt" stuff and dancing on the edge of NLT) is very reminiscent of two indeffed users, Zlykinskyja and PhanuelB. Also the account was registered right in the middle of a batch of many other Kercher SPAs, as can be seen at User:Pablo X/spa. No doubt someone will suggest and SPI here, but we already know this gang are adept at fooling CU. Someone really just needs to step up to the plate and invoke WP:DUCK, really, enough editor's time is being wasted here. 86.148.71.85 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to the duck case: user:Zlykinskyja aka user:PilgrimRose aka user:Darryl98 too mentioned in the past that they hold a law degree. Also their editing interrests lay close together: Criminal cases (not only MoMK) and focus on a certain geographical area and history. To top this off, user:RockSound's account was created and started editing the day after Zlykinskia's indef block and editing in the same time frame. The duck is running wild here.TMCk (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rock was also inactive between last August and this May. It would be interesting to know which user, if any, filled that time gap in a similar editing style. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. If confirmed I hope there will be a swipe for sleeper accounts as well.TMCk (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued POV editing contrary to consensus by User:I.Casaubon

    I.Casaubon (talk · contribs) created a slurry of articles likening discriminatory practices in various Middle Eastern countries to apartheid, in part intended as a "corrective" to the article Israel and the apartheid analogy. After I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain as "delete" in particular, he recreated it unilaterally within a couple weeks. I deleted it again per CSD#G4, and warned him not to recreate it. The deletion was subsequently endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27.

    Within little more than a month, he reposted it again, at Bahrain and the apartheid analogy. I speedy deleted it and SALTed it (accidentally used the wrong rationale in the summary; sorrynow fixed), and left this comment on his talk page. I don't have time right now to deal with this any further (the real world calls), but I think a block is probably in order, and the rest of his recent edits need to be reviewed for his POV soapboxing on this topic. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO it is an extreme sign of bad-faith and deception to try to slip in the same article via a different name, presumably to get past those who have the old title still on a watch list. This should go to WP:AE for a lengthy, if not indef, topic ban. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this the subject of an arbitration? (that's the only thing WP:AE can enforce.) Outside of the AFDs, I don't know anything about the topic's WP history (or this user) at all.

    As to why he posted it at a different title, I had SALTed the original title after he recreated it there. See also this discussion, in which the one commenter told I.Casaubon that he thought an "apartheid" section was inappropriate at Human rights in Bahrain, which I.Casaubon inexplicably takes as support for recreating a separate article notwithstanding the prior deletion discussions.

    For other related AFDs on similar articles by the same user, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid (the first I closed, and the only one in which I posted a deletion rationale), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. The Bahrain one is the only one that was taken to DRV, more about my speedy deletion of its recreation that I.Casaubon claimed was supported by new sources; deletion was nevertheless endorsed at DRV. It's clear that I.Casaubon knew that there was an established consensus against these articles, and that absent a DRV go-ahead, he couldn't recreate any of them.

    So I propose a block for one week. I think it might be appropriate to discuss a topic ban as well. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an AE matter, I think, because the only applicable case would be WP:ARBPIA, and this issue does not involve Israel. On the merits, I agree that persistent circumvention of the outcome of a deletion discussion, by repeatedly republishing the deleted content without addressing the reasons for the deletion, is disruptive editing. Consequently, I suggest that I.Casaubon is topic-banned from the concept of apartheid as applied to other matters than the historical system of apartheid in South Africa. Any short block would be merely punitive.  Sandstein  15:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I suggest that a review of the recent I.Casaubon SPI report may help ? It seemed like a pretty compelling case to me. It was declined. I've asked for an explanation here and I assume the declining admin will provide one at some point. I think I.Casaubon is a sockpuppet of a topic banned user. I also think it would be better if they were allowed to continue editing outside of the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, King of Hearts did not actually decline the CU, he just archived the investigation. HelloAnnyong declined it with the rationale: "Historicist and all of their socks are stale, so there's nothing to run a CU against." Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite sure I understand that rationale. We were once blocking legions of Grundle-socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600, but there's been none since last year. If another suspect pops up today, we can't use the old Grundle2600 evidence/information? Tarc (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A  Clerk declined at SPI means simply that a checkuser is not useful in the particular circumstances. It does not imply any conclusion as to the behavioral evidence. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Intimidating/Threatening behavior from User:HXL49

    Resolved
     – HXL49 is blocked for 1 week. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Earlier today, I benignly declined a WP:RFPP request from User:HXL49. HXL49 questioned the decline, and I calmly replied with this. HXL49 then aggressively retorts, which, in my opinion, is intimidating/threatening behavior. My question is, is intimidating/threatening behavior such as this acceptable? I must note that this is not the fist time HXL49 has been warned (here and here) for gross incivility and abrasive demeanor in the past. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say block one week for personal attacks, I thought consensus was rather clear last time around that we wouldn't put up with him continuing this kind of behaviour - and he's clearly ignored that and is continuing regardless. I'd block myself, but I'm just heading off. That said, you (Fastily) would have been wiser to not attempt to deal with the request opened by him. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingpin, I would be willing to take a 24-hour (or even 48) cooldown block, but not from you, and anything more than that can be construed as punishing, not preventative. Besides, the 60 or so of my past edits have been with AWB.
    Fastily, if you are going to come here for every incident, especially when I had tried to restrain myself, then no one knows what to say of you. My last sentence of my reply at RPP had a point: don't process anything that I request. We will both avoid anything like what occurred at RFP/A or even what occurred at RPP again. And you should have learned this lesson earlier. Finally, I did not make a personal attack against you this time, contrary to the false statement, perhaps lie, of Kingpin's above, and I did not even touch Fastily's talk this time around; I did not even address you until the last clause of the 3rd sentence, out of 5 sentences in the reply. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't lie, a threat like the one you made is considered a personal attack, please read WP:NPA (specifically the section on what is considered a personal attacks) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked him for a week, there's no room for threats like this [67] RxS (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's not going to get it then maybe a week's a bit short. That is an awful post and imo could be construed as a threat of harm. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no problem if someone wants to lengthen the block, I agree with you. RxS (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is particularly worrisome for HXL's future here especially considering it's only been a week since his last appearance here. --Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    His 'last appearance here' also had to do with his interaction with User:Fastily, whose behavior towards HXL49 has not been angelic, to say the least. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not have been the wisest move for Fastily to have responded to HXL's request, given their past history, but as he was acting within his admin capacity it is certainly within is purview to accept or reject the RFPP. My linking to the previous report was mostly to highlight the statement by HXL and his refusal to abide by WP:AGF. However, I believe that given he is now blocked, this should be marked as resolved. --Blackmane (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Steven Fabian -- heavily vandalized, virtually unsourced BLP

    This article has been steadily plagued with all sorts of vandalism, sometime quite offensive, almost since its creation. Some of it seems to have been directed by students at classmates, who are private persons and typically minors. The subject is a program host on "Channel One," a daily news show that is inflicted on directed at in-school audiences of middle and high school students, and the vandalism here is an indication of how much they appreciate it. The article has never included any substantial content, just a skimpy paragraph about the subject's college broadcasting experience, nor a significant assertion of notability, and the only sourcing has been to the subject's promotional bio on the channel's website; it might even be a borderline speedy case.
    Anyway, given the insubstantial nature of the little legitimate content, I've redirected the page to the Channel One article; I don't think there's any likelihood of establishing notability, with only seven pretty trivial GNews hits. Would it be appropriate to 1) protect the redirect page and 2) either delete the underlying article or at least RevDel the worst of the vandalism? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What a gosh awful mess. Perhaps a little IAR, but, I've thrown the entire history in the trash except the redirect. The amount of garbage in the history there was surprising. Courcelles 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from IP, similar to SuperblySpiffingPerson

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

    Either SSP has found an open proxy to hook into a Spanish ISP, or there's a copycat running around. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)

    IP 68.205.7.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started something that evolved into a sort of edit war. The trigger was this disruptive revision where the word "scholars" was changed to "nerds". That was promptly reverted by 4twenty42o (talk · contribs) who also issued a vandalism warning. The IP went on with an argument that "There is not reason people who read fantasy writing should be called scholars" and changed the text back to "People". Silvercitychristmasisland (talk · contribs) undid that then. Only 2 minutes later the IP was back: "Then put that guy, don't try to say that this book is discussed by english professors and some book they would study, it is a great story, but it is horribly written, it is almost like reading a text book".

    Because of the previous bad faith edit and admittedly also because of the arguments in the summaries I stepped then in, reverted that change and dealt out another vandalism warning. Edit warring itself may not be vandalism but the IP had a previous record of disrupting Tolkien-themed pages (article on The Hobbit films) and the IP's edit summaries were showing no good faith either so I decided to remove also the following changes by 68.205.7.47. Which brought me the accusation of being biased [68] because I like Tolkien's theme (WP:Vandalism: Edit summary vandalism - Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged). Because of this and because the IP went still on I reported them to AIV – although I did not explicitely report the "nerd" thing there. Meanwhile 1966batfan (talk · contribs) and Bluefist (talk · contribs) had also reverted some of the IP's continuous changes.

    However, Courcelles (talk · contribs) has declined the vandalism charges (see also the following comments) and accused me of edit warring [69]. Half an hour later he also revoked my rollback rights. He did block the IP for edit warring after they went on changing the article but he wrote on their talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong". So, while I made four reverts using the rollback tool I am still not under the impression that this qualifies as edit warring and/or content dispute and that vandalism did take place here: removing the aftermath of what began as a bad-faith edit ("nerd") made me think that I was right to do so and there are other editors who used rollback to revert the IP in the course of this incident. Most of the IP's edits may just look like simple POV pushing which is not vandalism but overall I am convinced that all those were essentially made in bad faith, trying to use "arguments", when the first bit of vandalism was removed by 4twenty42o. I'd like to have a second opinion in this matter after explaining it to Courcelles on his talk page. De728631 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with De on this one, Courcelles clearly hasn't looked at the history of the article edits: looks like an over zealous and anal interpretation of WP:3RR. The IP was clearly editing in bad faith, and ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the articles talk page. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Courcelles has looked into the edit history, only he doesn't think that the rest of the IP's edit were bad: "this wasn't a particularly hard case, one bad edit, three good ones". De728631 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oo, those awful orcs. Courcelles was absolutely right here; while the initial edit was inappropriate, the succeeding ones were legitimate. Frankly, the IP seems to have been right on the substantive issue; the cited source devotes most of its space to discussing claims by newspaper critics and popular culture writers (including right-wing extremists eager to find racism to embrace); very little traditional scholarship is mentioned in the text[70], and the footnotes mix scholarly and nonscholarly writings. The disputed sentence is a poor representation of the cited source, which appears to have been uncritically chosen to address the general topic in a sort of hand-waving way; a piece mostly discussing brief newspaper pieces is hardly a good source to demonstrate the existence of lengthy scholarly debates. The fact that the IP doesn't hold the prevailing view on the merit of a literary work is hardly evidence of bad faith; and being inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries is hardly proof of vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For me this has nothing to do with anyone's views on Tolkien's literary work or being against prevailing opinion. Nor has it something to do with the quality of the cited work. I was and I still am under the impression that the IP began this with a clearly disruptive edit and then changed to sneaky vandalism trying to use arguments and to gaming the system (akin to hiding vandalism and to "recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title" per WP:VAND). If it had been the IP's intention to contribute constructively to the article then why did they start off with "nerds" in the first place? I have a hard time assuming good faith in the follow up edits by 68.205.7.47 to that one. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So objectively valid, non-vandalous edits should be reversed because the editor might have had a bad motive? Are you really making that argument? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the argument is that the IP editor tried to denigrate the subject matter as non-scholarly. The first attempt was crude, the next ones less so but still making the same intellectually dishonest arguments that scholarly treatments of Tolkien's work do not exist. This IP wasn't simply "inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries", esp the one that was directly insulting to another editor. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Tarc has summed it up. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah...let it be. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Auburn Tigers football

    The page Auburn Tigers football has been repeatedly vandalised by user:98.127.64.150 and I'm unable to issue a warning on his talk page and won't be able to revert his edits again if he does them because of that 3rr thing so could comeone please do something to ensure that he desists from this vandalism? Oh and by the way it is vandalism, just look at the rest of the article and the sources. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like deliberate misinformation on part of the IP, see Auburn Tigers homepage for statistics. But why can't you edit their talk page and warn them? De728631 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried using Twinkle to warn them but it says I'm too new...Reichsfürst (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can do it manually: {{subst:uw-vandalism|<article>}} and all other templates can be placed without Twinkle. De728631 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Reichsfürst (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PatakaZikatuna (talk · contribs)

    We have a situation; this guy's been at it for over a year (including socking) with his obsession with a certain Vell Baria, an obvious vanity-page or possibly hoax. He's now again creating discographies, song-stubs, and whatnot. Can somebody explain to him (as others have tried before) that this persn isn't notable and that he needs to stop? Thanks. (see also Vellbaria (talk · contribs)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For added good measure, it's a biography (quite possibly autobiography) of a 16-year-old person with autism. I think we have BLP issues here. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a hoax, as the links on the page I just deleted shows. {I just went through each of them to make sure there was no new notability.} I am concerned about people avoiding page protection to recreate a deleted article. Which reminds me. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    user 213.89.48.81

    Sports isn't my field, but 213.89.48.81 (talk · contribs) seems to be combining number vandalism, blanking, and some ethnic stuff ignoring Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wanted confirmation I checked a few of the stats he's editing on sports players and it is vandalism plain and simple, of an extremely misleading kind. Reichsfürst (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dungeon Siege III leaks

    Please forgive me if this is not the appropriate avenue. I am having an issue with an editor here, Jpheonix (talk · contribs) (ip User:206.248.184.185) are insisting on adding information about about a leak of a game, specifically torrent releases, basically little more than advertising the torrent (currently without links). They are ignoring consensus on the talk page, and failing to provide reliable sources for notability of the leak, they have seemingly disengaged from discussion completely. Kinda at a loss of what to do now, I'm aware I'm past 3RR (which makes reporting the user for simply edit warring a little hypocritical), but it can be seen from the section of the article and talk page linked above that these edits are of little to no encyclopaedic value. THe user's attitude on the subject is clear from their contributions. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpheonix has continued to edit war, and has posted on his talk page that he is not going to stop. I can't see any alternative to a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 24h for edit warring, primarily, but they also need to understand WP:NOTNEWS and our copyright policies. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MickMacNee and WP:ITN/C

    This is over a discussion on WP:ITN/C, specifically Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Start of the 24 Hours of Le Mans (15:00 CEST). User:MickMacNee had a suggestion about a news item on the 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans being added to ITN, and there was some discussion. Most of the discussion I have no problem with, it's obviously a matter of opinions and interpretation of ITN policy, but as the discussion has continued the civility has begun to be thrown out the window. And I can understand some of that as well as the discussion has been heated. However things have begun to take a turn for the worse, and the latest edit has taken things to a level that I think need attention. Specifically, the final part of MickMacNee's edit, which states that his plan is to "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine."

    Despite reassurances that there have been no attemps to WP:OWN the article on my part and that several other editors have made major contributions to the article, MickMacNee seems to think he's going to be vengeful in his edits. Although updating an article properly is certainly helpful, I'm not quite so sure it is something that can be taken idly when someone claims to do it as a hateful act. The359 (Talk) 19:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF? You're reporting me to ANI for thought crime? Excellent. That's certainly a new one on me. Your damn right, the only way I will bother to update that article now, to the letter of the ITN requirements, is to get it onto the Main Page, and thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them. Hopefully your exposure of the article at ANI will do this for me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but while the debate got a little heated, it certainly didn't raise to the level of needed admin intervention. The discussion was a disappointing one for a lot of reasons but none of them need AN/I space. If I get time I'm going to write something up at ITN talk and get some reactions about how this debate has exposed some ITN problems. But there's no admin intervention needed here. RxS (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The359, welcome to the gang f&#k world that is MMN. Bjmullan (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RxS, my problem is not with the ITN discussion, its simply the attitude conveyed in the final statement made by MMN that this was something he was taking personal and that he was going to seek out "revenge". That is something that I feel deserves some sort of attention, at the very least some sort of cooling down. The359 (Talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @RxS: The AN/I report obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever problems ITN may or may not have, it's about whether a Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL, is going to be enforced or not. Clearly an editor who tells another editor "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine" has egregiously violated that policy, so an admin needs to act on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone is improving an article, why do we care what their motives are? He can do it for revenge, fun, or to give himself an erection for all I care. If the edits are good, who gives a stuff? As for civility, get over it. Running here is more disruptive than Mick's rather boring potty mouth.--Scott Mac 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes The359 get over it. Didn't you know that there is one rule of civility for us and one for the f*&k fest that is MMN. You are wasting your time here as EVERYONE is frightened of him and will do nothing other than offering up excuses for his behaviour. Bjmullan (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I concur with Scott; the motives might not be the most noble, but unless the edits are unconstructive there is no case. Unless Mick has intimated editors into not contributing to the project. or intentionally attacked editors with the hope of silencing them, I see no justifiable call for admin action. Ed Fitzgerald invokes WP:CIV in seeking punitive action; this to me, signifies the failure of that doctrine more than anything else. Skomorokh 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Motivation will always be a concern when the editor involved raises the issue. We AGF that edits are without unwarranted motivations, until they show themselves to be otherwise or the editor declares that they are editing with a POV, for instance. Once that happens, their contributions are naturally and justifiably put under closer scutiny. Nothing wrong with that, and everything right with it -- it's how we identify SPAs and many sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So Scott, even though you are an admin charged by the community with enforcing Wikipedia policy, you are never going to enforce the civility policy because you, personally, don't agree with it? Could we please have a definitive statement on your user page of what policies you agree with will enforce and which ones you don't and will not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are not charged with anything, although many of them ought to be. Janitors don't "enforce" anything, other than perhaps clean floors and toilets. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I deal with reality, and not theory, and in reality admins are cops and janitors. (It's rare that janitors are allowed to lock people out of the building selectively: the existance of the power to block makes admins enforcers). But, ok, I'll adopt your metaphor for the moment: the community has given Scott the tools to clean the floors and mop the toilets, but it appears that Scott refuses to clean the toilets on the fifth floor because he doesn't like the tiling in there. What other toilets and floors will Scott not clean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like every other admin, I only clean the floors I choose to clean. I'm a volunteer. It is that simple.--Scott Mac 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but, although you may not see the distinction, there's a difference between just not doing X, and carrying a stance against X to the point that you tell other editors to "Get over it". WP:CIVIL remains policy and one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, not an essay, a guideline or someone's crackpot idea, and it's unseemly for admins to go around telling editors that they shouldn't be concerned when it is breached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee was in January, and included civility issues. Rd232 talk 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle vécut heureuse

    Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [71] due to edit warring between Elle vécut heureuse à jamais and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [72] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [73] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle vécut heureuse à jamais was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [74], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangemarlin

    Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has recently been making a large number of gratuitous personal attacks on editors [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence, this is hardly a first offense. Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked. Chester Markel (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty funny stuff, considering Orange thinks abortion doesn't kill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. Provocative remarks that are utterly relevant to the immediate problem are always helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Always glad to be of service. The "immediate problem" is Orange claiming (in low-life language) to be much more intelligent than everyone else. Yet he doesn't know that abortion kills. If that's high intelligence, then goddess help us all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, Baseball Bugs, please read WP: SOAP and quit posting irrelevant person opinions regarding politics on this page.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have all of 19 edits, so what do you know about anything? This much I do know: That abortion kills an embryo or fetus is not a political viewpoint, it's a biological fact. The political question is whether the aborted embryo or fetus is legally a "person". That has nothing to do with the biological fact that abortion kills the embryo or fetus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and male masturbation "kills" millions of sperm. Your point? This is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. As usual, you are trolling and making incendiary, uncalled-for statements when they are completely unrelated to the discussion. And, for the record, I have been editing here under multiple IP addresses for years. How you have managed to avoid being blocked indefinitely is beyond me.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is off topic guys, let's try and maintain focus please. GiantSnowman 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not completely off-topic, since Orangemarlin's competence is relevant here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that he appears to have both a left and right "nutsack". That's pretty powerful stuff, but what was that personal attack he made reference to in the second out of curiosity? Not saying that anything could have just have justified that... idk what to even call that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second diff, comments such as the following would reasonably be construed as personal attacks: "My left nutsack knows more than you" and "you lack anything but personal attacks as a skill set". WP:NPA isn't enforced by blocking for minor or isolated offenses, but this problem is pretty blatant and ongoing. Chester Markel (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with Orangemarlin's behavior is not just the personal attacks and unceasing profanity, but also the continued assumption that anyone who holds an opinion that differs from his is anti-science or a bigot in some way. This is delibrately (IMO) inflammatory and not productive to the project - to put it mildly. It needs to stop. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh goodie. I needed some excitement. Popcorn? -Atmoz (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Chester, did you happen to notice that no arbs have complained of OM's posts about FT2? That would be because they accepted what he said (whether unnecessarily forceful or not — that's a matter of taste), and saw the OM case as an embarrassment to arbcom, which defended and protected the dishonest FT2 for far too long. It's weird, to put it mildly, to see you setting up your own views on the Orangemarlin case, and on FT2, as believing yourself better-informed than these arbs. I suggest you read up on these things. You may be less inclined to attack Orangemarlin once you know more about what happened. Risker's post here would be a good place to start. About OM's page: I realise you had to alert him about this thread (though the thread itself seems unnecessary, and primarily a means of keeping the flames burning). But stop prodding him on his page right now, please. You're done there, per his request. [80]Wikipedia is not a battleground. You too, Michael Price: this is not your opportunity to bring the abortion war to ANI. I quote Chester M above: "Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked." That applies to you guys too. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Excuse me, Bishonen, the problems with Orangemarlin go way beyond the "abortion war". This is a pattern of abuse and incivility that has existed for years and across many articles. If you are not aware of that then perhaps you need to do a little research of your own. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrators' reasons for not sanctioning Orangemarlin for comments related to FT2 are obvious. There would be a perceived conflict of interest if they took action against editors for criticism of purportedly official actions taken by a former arbitrator, even when formulated as blatant personal attacks for which users would normally be blocked. But the community has no such COI. And many of Orangemarlin's most recent personally attacks are directed against editors having no affiliation with arbcom at all. The existence of a flawed arbitration case doesn't excuse severe NPA violations.
    My starting this thread isn't "primarily a means of keeping the flames burning". AN/I or arbcom are the only available fora to request involuntary remedies for severe behavioral problems. The prudence of not starting a request for arbitration under these circumstances should be apparent. Chester Markel (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What we have here is OM being WP:BAITed by a group of editors for making a statement that almost no one would agree with. If you believe that "abortion kills a foetus" you also believe that creating a stem cell line from an aborted embryo saves a life. In other words, what we have is a group of editors like Micheal Price and Bugs who are doing this best to provoke OM for making a statement that only a narrow fringe would disagree with. Either they're attacking him on purely political grounds, or they can't figure out the simple logic of what he said. So he's right, and the people attacking him are not smart enough to grapple with the problem, or this is nothing but an attempt by pro-lifers to censor inconvenient facts. It's always kinder to assume stupidity rather than malice. Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're wrong. There are over 65,000 Google Scholar results[83] for the phrase "fetal death", and 2,500 Google Scholar results[84] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion. I've discussed some of the latter search results on talk:Abortion, and explained how these WP:MEDRS specifically describe fetal death as an outcome of abortion. So Orangemarlin's comments like "Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die?"[85] are totally without merit, your original research notwithstanding. If, as you propose, Orangemarlin should be given a free license to make as many severe personal attacks as he wants if he's right, he isn't, and he shouldn't. Chester Markel (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All this bellyaching is over abortion topic editing? IMO if you're going to get yourself involved in a topic that nuclear, then you accept a bit of rough play, whether you're pro-or anti-. Toughen up the skin and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should amend WP:NPA, then, to indicate that it's inapplicable to controversial subjects, for which severe personal attacks are par for the course. Or we could recognize that flame warring is especially inappropriate in that context. If you propose to modify the policy in this way, I don't think you'll get much support. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Orangemarlin's disparagement of FT2 has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, or any other particular article subject. The "nuclear topic" NPA exception won't hold in that respect. The fact that Guettarda introduced the content dispute over the abortion article to this discussion shouldn't sidetrack it, especially as none of my initial diffs were from talk:Abortion. If you want to give editors free reign to make personal attacks on "nuclear" topics, couldn't we at least confine the disruption to directly related article talk pages? Chester Markel (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You honestly don't have the slightest idea the history between FT2 and Orangemarlin, do you? Let me start you off with some reading material on a matter that was about this close from starting a intra-ArbCom/Arbcom-Community miniwar: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. Do take some time to read all of it. NW (Talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me

    I'd like an administrator to intervene. A user named Abrazame is constantly reverting my edits on the article of Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page. Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page. I added information into the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal article. Consensus on the Talk Page of that article (see above) approved such. And Abrazame keeps stating his own personal opinion that "this is not part of the scandal". All of the information that I added was true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    (1) I was not edit warring. (2) My template was not broken ... I typed the word incorrectly on purpose so that the template would not yet appear ... so that I could edit and tweak my post for mis-spellings, etc., before it appeared as a Help Wanted request. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    3 reversions in the space of an hour definitely constitutes edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sides are edit warring, but it seems as though adding that particular piece about the Delaware girl is a BLP violation, since there are no claims of any illicit messages sent from Weiner to that girl. As of yet. So adding it, right now, is definitely inappropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are claiming that the "messages were illicit" and, therefore, a BLP violation. The section quoted (which I typed below) does not say that at all. Where does the contested material state that the messages were illicit? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, exactly. Consensus on the page indicates that it is indeed a part of the scandal. All my posts were true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Yet, they were all reverted by the User Abrazame. So, again ... please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Despite the fact that I believe your interpretation of "consensus" is wrong (there is obvious contention), I'll ignore that for a second. This still does not excuse you from continuing to revert edits. The warning was consistent with the fact that both of you are warring right now, and both of you were given that warning. There is nothing more to advise. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty more to advise. So, in the meanwhile, while this is sorted out ... why is it that their version (reverts of my original edits) remain in place? As opposed to my version (reverts to their edits) remaining in place? Again, please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Advice: review WP:WRONGVERSION. Thanks! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I have no idea who is right or wrong here, but I do know from experience that Off2riorob is a user who definitely will push for his cause. Whatever he thinks is right he will defend. This can be both a positive and a negative thing in certain circumstances. I agree, please cease the edit war facet of the situation and let cooler heads prevail. CycloneGU (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be true, but in my experience Off2riorob usually gets it right, especially where BLP is concerned, so we have to be careful. These issues need to be confined to the talk page of the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I have no idea who is right or wrong here, but I do know from experience that Off2riorob is a user who definitely will push for his cause."
      • That's not necessary. Who is right or wrong is unimportant, all that matters is whether somebody's actions are misplaced and if so what to do about them, which aligning for or against people won't help. Agreeing with you in that edit warringshould come to an end.AerobicFox (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 5000) Side note: I replied on the article talk page. What I said is consistent with the above. This "complaint" was placed in 3 distinct locations. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are both this schmuck and Santorum causing so much drama here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Politics makes people into idiots? -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Flinders Petrie - please comment on the edits, not the editor. GiantSnowman 00:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman - It doesn't look to me like User:Flinders Petrie was commenting on editors (although he wasn't commenting on edits, either.) Did you mean to direct that at User:Avanu? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression was the "schmuck" comment was directed at Weiner, with the Weiner and Santorum articles causing the drama, not the editors, per se. --64.85.214.170 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He called somebody a "schmuck" - whether that is an editor or a BLP, it is highly innapropriate either way. GiantSnowman 01:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is usually best to check the page history [86] (though it was in the last 100 edits rather than 50), I also thought it would have been obvious in the context I was referring to Weiner (as both are congressmen), and usually I'm not dumb enough to make a WP:NPA violation out of the blue on the ANI board. =p It's highly inappropriate to make an off-hand comment calling a congressman who has had such bad luck a schmuck? Never heard of referring to someone as a poor schmuck when they're having terrible luck? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Contested edit

    This is the exact quote (below) of the edit in question. Where does it state that the messages were illicit? In fact, it states the exact opposite! The edit is factual, NPOV, relevant, and sourced. So, why is it not allowed to be added into the article? Please advise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    • Communications with underage female: During Weiner’s June 6 press conference, a reporter asked him if all of his sexting partners were of age. "I only know what they published on social media," he said. "They’re all adults." A reporter yelled out that he could hardly know this for sure, but in the hubbub of being peppered with questions, Weiner either didn't hear or didn't care to respond. On June 10, however, authorities in Delaware visited the home of a 17-year-old female high school student who had exchanged private Twitter messages with Weiner. [Reference Cited] Weiner subsequently admitted to communicating with the minor, although he claimed that their interactions "were neither explicit nor indecent".
    This isn't the place to debate whether the edits should be added to the article. I will mention that the above is taken directly from here, so it would be a violation of copyright anyways to include it. The only matter here that pertains tot he admin board is the edit warring going on which needs to stop. If you are seeking outside opinions there are other avenues for that: WP:RFC, WP:M, WP:CNB, but I would gauge on the talk page whether any of these avenues would change anything before hand, and if not try something else. Either way edit warring is not an acceptable approach(for you or Abrazame), nor is any of this harassment.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is edit warring? And what "harassment" are you referring to exactly? I am trying to resolve the problem. And I thought that was what this page is all about? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    This place is to notify admins of actions to take. Mediation can be found at WP:M, and other places listed above.
    As for who is edit warring it is clear that you are edit warring, along with but to a lesser extent Abrazame here.
    And what "harassment" are you referring to exactly?
    The harassment you alleged here:
    "Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page. Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page."
    I see that you both were warned, posting a 3-rr warning is not harassment.AerobicFox (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph, making numerous reverts in a short period of time is edit warring, which you were doing. Off2riorob's leaving both of you warning messages is not harassment. As such, there is nothing actionable here by any administrator. Your best bet is to go to the talk page of the article in question and seek consensus to add your material. As you wish to add controversial content to a BLP related article, the burden of proof is on you to show that the content belongs. There is nothing we can do for you on ANI. Resolute 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the edit warring has stopped. No? Am I incorrect on that issue? I am referring to the events after the so-called "edit war" (i.e., my attempts to get help in resolving this issue now, at this point). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    (ec)Do you need admin actions(blocking, banning, locking, etc) right now at this moment? If not then there's no reason for this to be discussed here. This isn't a dispute resolution board, if you need help beyond an article's talkpage to resolve a dispute see: WP:RFC, WP:M, WP:CNB, etc.AerobicFox (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, you admin's (in general, as a whole) are so very unhelpful, it's simply unbelievable. Just thought you should know that. I wish you'd take your jobs more seriously and with more compassion than simply quoting policy, chapter and verse like robots. Not all of you, but -- sadly -- many/most of you. So unhelpful. And, yes, I am entitled to form my opinion and to state my opinion. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    We don't have "jobs" - we're volunteers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "job" is not mutually exclusive of a volunteer position. The word "job" is not limited to paid positions. I am fully aware that Wiki admin's are volunteers. Nonetheless, they are performing work here (i.e., a "job") ... specifically, a job for which they volunteer. What was your point? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    We can only point you in the right direction. We can't force others to accept your viewpoints. I gave you the next step already: discuss your proposal on the article talk page. If a consensus is reached on the talk page that supports adding such material, it will be added. If consensus opposes, it will not. Resolute 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We admins, just like you or any other editor, are bound by "policy, chapter and verse". We have a couple more tools to make sure "policy, chapter and verse" (aka WP policies and guidelines) are maintained, but the policies and guidelines are the same. Tonywalton Talk 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, so in the meanwhile ... why is it that the "wrong version" is maintained? Simply because that last editor got "one last edit in" before the 3 RR warnings were posted? No one was in any way helpful on that issue. As I attempted to resolve this, while avoiding further edits. All I got was a "humor essay" linked above. Thanks ( ... uh, for nothing ) ... ! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Again, please see WP:WRONGVERSION, and take the point. The issue here isn't the version of the page being maintained, it's the edit warring. Stop that and seek consensus, and the wrong version will be replaced with the right one, soon enough. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring concluded, uhhhh, about 5 hours ago. You are 5 hours "behind" on the conversation. My question was how to resolve it now ... now that the edit warring has stopped. Uh ... thanks(?), I guess. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    You could try using {{editprotected}} on talk, but you should probably seek consensus for the change first. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what article are we talking about? I'd thought from MuZemike's comment, below, that Anthony Weiner sexting scandal was fully protected, but it doesn't look like it actually is? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, if I was to revert to your preferred version while still under full protection, then the "other side" will then complain (not to mention will look like an admin is taking sides). That is the whole point behind the Wrong Version phenomenon. –MuZemike 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that supposed to be helpful? Seriously? So, then, keep my version and let the other side complain. Or it's simply a random / arbitrary matter of "who got the last edit in"? Great process! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Medeis, who has already reverted the section back into the article in prior edit, has done so again without further discussion at the talk page. I request a block of this editor and some clarity from administrators about the fact that discussion and consensus is required in general, much less after all of this. [87]

    I hesitated to post this here because, although I was notified by another editor that I was mentioned here, I thought my actions were self-explanatory and noted a general desire not to handle this here. For one thing, the contested edit was not actually headed "Communication with underage female" the first few times it was reverted, it was headed:

    Contact with underage female

    For another thing, communications that were not part of the scandal were not part of the scandal. By "part of the scandal", just to be clear, as it seems to escape many editors at that page, I mean itself scandalous or germane to an understanding of the scandal. You see, simply being reported on in a RS is not the threshold for putting something in an article. It has to be WP:RELEVANT to the topic, it has to be not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and it has to not present a skewed, WP:POV, or cherry-picked version to make it look like it's worse than it is. You have repeated on the article's talk page what you implied in the edit, that Weiner "claimed" the Tweets in question were not illicit. Yet you do so in an article about a man who initially denied Tweeting the photo. So you are presenting it in a way that suggests, "Eh, he could be telling the truth this time, but what do you think, reader? It is, after all, considered by Wikipedia an encyclopedic aspect of this scandal, so much so that it gets its own section head. But we'll let you decide." Well it's not up to the reader to decide based on that sort of presentation. Because the cited source for the material you were insisting on putting into the article happened also to say that the girl and her family confirmed the congressman's characterization. You apparently don't want to mention that to the reader, or discuss it with me at that article's talk page, which is what you're supposed to do when you find your edit reverted out of the article, not this full court press to cry foul all across the project without taking so much as a moment to WP:DISCUSS, much less think or read.

    A source I read this morning, but which has since been replaced, when I go back and click on it in my browser history, with an updated article focusing on congresspeople calling for his resignation rather than the exculpatory detail, actually quoted a Delaware police source that their investigation at the girl's home confirmed this. So I thought I would revert the section out of the article, post on the article's talk page my editorial judgement about the violations, and then go in search of a version of the article that confirms the police confirmation—not so that we could put in to our encyclopedia that for about an hour this morning the fact of a police investigation might have led some people to believe Weiner did something inappropriate in those Tweets, but now we have police confirmation that he did not, but to show why this shouldn't be in there at all.

    Yet you're uninterested in an editorial discussion on what constitutes POV or a BLP violation, you just want to have that assertion in the article in black and white with its own header and no pesky mitigation like the results of the police investigation, so rather than finding you have responded to a single one of my points, I find you have reported me far and wide as if I were the irresponsible editor here.

    Both in my defense and to educate Joseph, WP:3RR explicitly states that one is exempt when the edits involve:

    "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

    So, noting that I was given a 3RR warning on my talk page—for the first time in six years at this project—I did what the section advised and reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Implication of newsy wrinkle conflated (in a libelous manner) in a scandal article.

    I would like some clarity that, given these factors—not to mention (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)'s assertion that he has not gleaned anything useful from any of this—that I was not "edit warring". Defending the exclusion of inflammatory material pending discussion is not an edit war, the people reverting the material back in while ignoring the points I raised or any other editorially responsible action (like reading the cited source or Googling some other) is the edit warring. I don't mean that I was not in violation because I stopped at the third revert, I mean that an objective reading of this in the context I've pointed out means that it is (talk) who was in the wrong, in several respects. Obviously I would not have taken reverts to an extreme, but until I could draw the attention of someone else with editorial responsibility, the irresponsible thing to do in a situation where inflammatory material (or an inflammatory presentation of material) would be to leave it in and beg the other editor to respond to my talk page comment, and that I was in the right to revert it and look for backup. Finally, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has not directly responded to anything I have said throughout this issue, on that talk page or at any of these other pages he has gone to avoid that. I would also like for someone to point out to him that such article talk page editorial discussion is supposed to be his first editorial effort to understand and resolve the issue, not one that even after several hours and dozens of posts by him about the issue throughout the project he still feels justified in ignoring.

    Thank you, Abrazame (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for help Talk:New France

    Is there a way to stop certain Commons files from appearing here on english Wiki? I ask because I am involed in the article New France were we are have a problem that a French map keeps begin placed in the article (for over a year this has been happening). On english Wikipedia we have no clue what the map is saying - thus are having problem determining if its OR/Synthesis. . So I have brought the file up for deletion in hopes of a wider audience and received a very unpleasing response. Was here looking to get more experienced eyes on this problem before anyone gets blocked. I have tried many time to get User:Hypersite to engage in talks by way of his/her talk page and article page to no avail. Talk:New France#East Texas wasn't French ...What can I do ????Moxy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It could be added to the bad image list with no allowed exceptions, but that's normally used for potentially offensive images that can be used to vandalise other pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might solicit the assistance of someone(s) from Category:User_fr to determine whether the image in question is, in fact, OR or synthetic. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried running the French text through a mechanical translator? Won't be perfect, but might give you an idea of what it's about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "very unpleasing response" is due largely to the fact that Moxy is treating the DR like an FFD, arguing based on en:wp policies such as WP:OR that don't matter at Commons. Commons is a multilingual project, so we shouldn't be surprised that other languages appear in its images. I've voted to delete, but for reasons unrelated to Moxy's rationale. Moxy, there's nothing you should do except seek to gain consensus at the talk page that it doesn't belong; if such consensus be reached, you can add a hidden comment of "DON'T ADD THIS IMAGE" and proceed to keep removing it if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the link you provide on my commons page and understand that people can upload anything to commons (was not aware of this) - that's fine i guess. So how do we go about stoping it from being added here? As we do have policies here about OR and the fact our readers should understand what is being shown. If you were to read the deletion you can see that it being French is not a reason for deletion by why we dont want it here. I think we have consensus as its been removed by multiple editors multiple times over the past year. We also have the small talk going on over the past year (a small talk and is why I have tried here and other place to get more involved). Do you really think a note will stop the addition of this map knowing it's history? - do you have any other suggestion on how we can not have this here - as you can see we don't understand it or are interpreting it wrong. Moxy (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP

    24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This anon is repeatedly and frivolously accusing editors of vandalism, stalking, personal attacks, etc. I've just reverted the anon's disruption in his userspace [88]; the anon was already explicitly told not to engage in this type of behavior [89]. He also strangely makes this posting yet sees fit to act as if he is uninvolved here. The last warning appears to have produced no useful results. Looking at the anon's contributions (24.177.123.74 9 Jan - 30 Jan, 24.177.120.74 30 Jan- 18 Feb and 24.177.120.138 19 Feb Till now - which does not substantiate the anon's claim that he has made 12,000 contributions to the wiki), block log, and the rich history of other warnings on his user talk page, long term resolution would be useful. Requesting for an admin to step in and deal with the disruption being caused by this IP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon has continued being disruptive since my reversion and being notified of this ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, you've been asked by an administrator to leave my user page alone, yet you continue to blank large sections of it. Please stop. 24.177.120.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    The admin said "Unless any content violates a policy"; as this is NOT permitted in your user space ("Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing"), and another user has repeated this concern. However, you have continued with this disruptive editing and it needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While removing the self-awarded barnstars, the dishonest userboxes, and the other phony distinctions the IP confers on itself was probably inappropriate, the IP's use of its userpage to create a "hall of shame" for users it's involved with disputes with is clearly misbehavior, much like this case [90]. In the context of its extensive block track history and track record of uncivil provocation of other editors, the page is just another excuse for disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you follow the link User:Ncmvocalist offered, you'll find that my log is, in fact, acceptable if I'm compiling factual material for purposes such as preparing for WP:DR. Please ask me if I am. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed: 24.177.120.138 temporarily banned

    Proposed: 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is community banned for a period of one month.

    Comment I've altered the section header and the proposal above, to note that this is a proposal, and not an action that's been taken. IMO, this isn't the appropriate forum for such a proposal; it should be taken to WP:RfC/U. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Making ED.ch pages on user after article dispute

    I was advised by User:Amatulic to make this section in order to ask a question in regards to an incident between myself and User:H644444. On June 4th, he and I got into a dispute on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article over the addition of this information, which was not included in the source used. About 15 minutes after this dispute occurred, a user called H64 made an article about me on EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, which can be found here. I think the connection is fairly obvious between the two of them.

    After a bit of further investigation, I found that H64 is a part of the ten members of the "ED Government" on the site, a part of the "military branch" specifically. I asked Amatulic if anything can or should be done on-wiki in regards to this after I noticed that H64 has continued to edit the article on me in question. He advised I ask here.

    So, I guess the question is, we generally don't consider off-wiki activities in regards to evidence presented about users, but does this case, where a user creates a derogatory article on an ED related site about a user they are in a dispute with on-wiki, deserve some sort of on-wiki action? If so, what sort of action would be appropriate? SilverserenC 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block for continued editing of the same point by a previously involved editor without discussion, checking sources, or including mitigating point

    μηδείς (talk, who was already involved in the edit warring on this point, has done so again without further discussion at the talk page. I request a block of this editor and some clarity from administrators about the fact that discussion and consensus and accurate presentation of material (if found to be relevant in the first place) is required in general, much less after all of this.

    Medeis has ignored all points on the talk page; they have ignored the central two points of the revert of this point out of the article: First, that suggesting this is part of the scandal implies it is improper behavior, and Second, that suggesting it and only printing Weiner's denial of impropriety, without the family's confirmation and the result of the police visit, is extreme POV.

    Communications that were not part of the scandal were not part of the scandal. By "part of the scandal", just to be clear, as it seems to escape many editors at that page, I mean itself scandalous or germane to an understanding of the scandal. Aside from the fact that it shouldn't be here at all, placing this detail in the article with only the fact that Weiner "claimed" the Tweets in question were not illicit in an article about a man who initially denied Tweeting the other photo is presenting it in a way that suggests, "Eh, he could be telling the truth this time, but what do you think, reader? It is, after all, considered by Wikipedia an encyclopedic aspect of this scandal. But we'll let you decide." Well it's not up to the reader to decide based on that sort of presentation. Because the cited source for the material these two editors are insisting on putting into the article happened also to say that the girl and her family confirmed the congressman's characterization. They apparently don't want to mention that to the reader, or discuss it with me at that article's talk page, which is what one is supposed to do when one finds one's edit reverted out of the article.

    A source I read this morning, but which has since been replaced, when I go back and click on it in my browser history, with an updated article focusing on congresspeople calling for his resignation rather than the exculpatory detail, actually quoted a Delaware police source that their investigation at the girl's home confirmed this. So I thought I would revert the section out of the article, post on the article's talk page my editorial judgement about the violations, and then go in search of a version of the article that confirms the police confirmation—not so that we could put in to our encyclopedia that for about an hour this morning the fact of a police investigation might have led some people to believe Weiner did something inappropriate in those Tweets, but now we have police confirmation that he did not, but to show why this shouldn't be in there at all.

    WP:3RR explicitly states that one is exempt when the edits involve:

    "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

    So, noting that I was given a 3RR warning on my talk page—for the first time in six years at this project—I did what the section advised and reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Implication of newsy wrinkle conflated (in a libelous manner) in a scandal article.

    I would like some clarity that, given the persistence to readd the irrelevant and misleading and cherry-picked data, these factors—not to mention (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)'s assertion and the upshot of μηδείς's edit, that they feel they are completely in the right and completely free of any editorial responsibility for taking part in the discussion, observing the 3RR, or properly sourcing and representing the source, have not gleaned anything about their editorial responsibility from any of this. Defending the exclusion of inflammatory material or material presented in an inflammatory or highly POV way pending discussion is not an edit war, they, the people reverting the material back in while ignoring the points I raised or any other editorially responsible action (like reading the cited source or Googling some other), is the edit warring. I don't mean that I was not in violation because I stopped at the third revert, I mean that an objective reading of this in the context I've pointed out means that it is (talk) who was in the wrong, in several respects. Obviously I would not have taken reverts to an extreme, but until I could draw the attention of someone else with editorial responsibility, the irresponsible thing to do in a situation where inflammatory material (or an inflammatory presentation of material) would be to leave it in and beg the other editor to respond to my talk page comment, and that I was in the right to revert it and look for backup. But for μηδείς (talk to go in at this point without discussion, digestion of the facts, and consensus is clearly provocative edit warring. Finally, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has not directly responded to anything I have said throughout this issue, on that talk page or at any of these other pages he has gone to avoid that. I would also like for someone to point out to him that such article talk page editorial discussion is supposed to be his first editorial effort to understand and resolve the issue, not one that even after several hours and dozens of posts by him about the issue throughout the project he still feels justified in ignoring.

    Thank you, Abrazame (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=433820401"