Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Administrator Fut.Perf.'s self-issued topic ban to User:Hkwon

Background: I have been working on a content dispute on Kimchi for about one month. I came to this dispute (if I recall correctly) because of an RfC about how to word the lead. The dispute essentially boiled down to User:Hkwon having a preferred way to state the lead, and between 2 and 5 other editors, myself included, preferring another. During that time, due to edit-warring being conducted by several participants, the page was fully protected twice (once for 3 days, once for a week). There was a bit of incivility, mostly between Hkwon and User:Sennen goroshi and, to a lesser extent, User:Melonbarmonster2; incivility which I believe spanned across this page as well as user pages and other Korean-related pages. At one point User:Hkwon was blocked for a week for personal attacks [1], later reduced to 24 hours [2]. By the end of the last protecting, we still hadn't reached consensus; however, once the protection was removed, edit warring did not recommence--instead, the lead was changed to the majority view, and Hkwon requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal (the request for mediation has not been acted on yet, and can be seen here. For my part, at least, throughout the Kimchi debate, I found Hkwon's insistence on his version to be tendentious, but I also felt that he was providing solid, policy based reasons for his opinions along with reliable sources to support it. He didn't seem to be edit warring any more or less than other users. I further felt that he was no more incivil than other participants. During the same time frame, though, Hkwon was also involved in what I believe were heated discussions on other Korean related topics; I wasn't involved so I won't speak to his behavior there.

On July 22, however, Fut.Perf. posted on Hkwon's talk page [3] that s/he believed Hkwon had been "persistently disruptive" and "fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen." Then s/he stated that Hkwon was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning." I am requesting community review of that "decision." According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. Therefore, I don't think Hkwon is actually banned, because I don't think Fut.Perf. has the authority to do so. User:Martin Hogbin and myself questioned FP about this "banning" on FP's talk page, both stating that we felt it was excessive; other users (User:Heimstern and User:Cydevil38) argued that if Hkwon deserved a topic ban, so did others, for employing the same basic behaviors. FP has so far stated that he believes his actions were right, that his experience with Korean topics leads him to believe strong administrator action is needed/justified, and that the burden is currently on Hkwon to "comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future."

So, two questions: 1) Is Hkwon really topic banned (that is, does FP's comment have the force of policy), and 2) Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion?

tl;dr:FP unilaterally claimed to topic ban Hkwon. Is this acceptable and legitimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I came as an uninvolved editor to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC. After a while of trying to mediate in a simple but intractable discussion on whether kimchi was 'a fermented food' I was staggered to find that the supporter on one particular view, Hkwon, had received an indefinite topic ban from Fut. perf. I commented on FP's talk page that I thought his action was too strong and later made this simple and positive suggestion to FP: 'Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action'. This was rejected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This was recently discussed (can't seem to recall where), I believe the notion was generally disfavoured as it had too much potential for abuse. In general, my thoughts are that if the behaviour in question could justify an indefinite block, then the topic ban to prevent disruption is being offered to the user as a lesser measure. Haven't looked at this in any detail, so I can't say whether it would apply here. –xeno^talk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disclosure - I was previously blocked by FPAS. I'm not otherwise involved. I believe that it is beyond FPAS's authority as an admin to topic ban an editor. Bans are to be imposed by the community or ArbCom, and an admin does not have that authority. Further, based on the fact that FPAS exceeded their authority as an admin, I believe that a subsequent block by FPAS would be ill-advised, and that either the community or another admin should handle the situation. I do not have any input on the conduct of any of the other parties in this matter, and am just commenting on the procedural issues. As far as I can tell, FPAS is otherwise a decent admin - there should in no way be any sanctions, just a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite it never having been written into policy, it's not too uncommon for admins to issue sanctions on their own, particularly is heated areas. Note that this proposed finding of fact which would have clearly asserted that admins do not have the authority to issue topic bans was firmly rejected by ArbCom. (The sanction under consideration was in fact confirmed by the community, but that doesn't seem to have factored into the voting.) My observation has been that single-admin-imposed sanctions of this sort are valid if the community is willing to enforce them. For my part, the edit warring I saw at Kimchi makes me believe there ought to be more, not fewer, sanctions here (maybe not of indefinite duration, but definitely for long enough that the article can have some rest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

*Disclosure - I was also previously blocked by FutPerf and also have been the subject of a topic ban (topic ban was nothing to do with Futperf) I have found that while FurPerf is not as lenient as other Admins, his actions (including this one) have been spot on every time. This isn't about punishing various editors, neither is this about a content dispute - this is about making specific set of articles free from disruption. The editor in question has been recently blocked twice in a few weeks for actions related to these articles and each time comes straight back and continues with the disruption. I consider a topic ban to be far more effective and lenient than a number of consecutive blocks that slowly increase in duration, with periods of disruption between each block. My topic ban saved me from my own stupidity and saved me from a far longer block than I have ever had the dubious pleasure of experiencing, it also allowed me to edit unrelated articles and contribute to wikipedia on less controversial articles. I wish Hkwon good luck and have confidence in him making constructive edits, I just don't think that will ever happen if he edits these particular articles - if it isn't on the Kimchi article, it will on another Korean cuisine related article. This topic ban probably means that he is unable to edit about 0.01% of the articles on Wikipedia, not such a heavy price to pay for some stability on these articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This block does not affect just Hkwon. How is the issue now to be resolved? Hkwon is no longer able to put his side of the argument leaving the uninvolved editors who were trying to mediate hearing only one side of the story and thus unable to make any progress. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They can read the archives to find out what he has to say -- it's not like his opinion has been completely removed from the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around the Korea/Japan related topics knows Futper has done this in the past. The ban is harsh but Hkwon picked up right where he started even after his ban instead toning it down. The situation was such that several neutral editors, and even Sennen and myself(mortal enemies) were on the same page trying to reason Hkwon into a compromise about kimchi being "often/usually/primarily" fermented to no avail. I do think a stern admin warning would have sufficed but I can't say I'm surprised and it puts the rest of us on notice.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Administrators have no authority to issue topic bans without prior authorization (normally concerning a specific topic area) by the Arbitration Committee or the community. A policy proposal (by me) that would have given administrators such authority, WP:Discretionary sanctions, did not obtain consensus. Accordingly, topic bans without basis in an ArbCom or community decision are void and can be ignored. However, admins may and often do sanction disruptive conduct with blocks, and if an adninistrator determines that a user's editing in a topic area is consistently disruptive, they are free to either block the user or to warn them that a block will ensue if disruptive editing in that topic area continues. The practical difference between this and a formal topic ban is that edits within the scope of a topic ban need not be disruptive in order to trigger a block.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein that it seems to me Futper has applied WP:DIGWUREN reasoning to a topic area not addressed by ArbCom. There's also been a request to MedCab by Hkwon where the involved parties are welcome to comment there and I think any issue with Futper's actions should be brought here by Hkwon and not others. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Futper was strongly admonished and desysopped for 3 months about "displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard". Later Jimbo raised concerns along similar lines. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here. That arbitration action doesn't say anything about issuing topic bans and Jimbo's concerns appear to be about FPAS performing administrative actions related to Greece/Macedonia not him being "incivil, rude, offensive and insulting." AniMate 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevancy is to the misuse of admin power, not the specifics. Futper has a history of doing things administratively that perhaps are not completely within the appropriate boundaries and this current incident would be another example. Note that there was also an RfC in 2008. This ANI revolves around inappropriate use of admin authority (by imposing a topic ban). As did the prior incidents even if the details differ. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A clarification to the above; I believe Melonbarmonster just misspoke, but Hkwon has not performed any editing since being banned. He did edit again after being blocked, and some of that editing was questionable. At least on kimchi, he did not, however, engage in any personal attacks, which is what he was blocked for. As with others above, I certainly believe Fut.Perf. can and should have warned Hkwon that his behavior was unacceptable, and that he was headed for a block (possibly even an escalating series of blocks). But banning is obviously far more harsh--it means that even should he make a good faith edit, everyone else can and should revert his edits without even reading them. Furthermore, the ban gives the appearance of being partial--it implies that the behavior of others in the topic area was acceptable, while Hkwon's was not, according to some arbitrary standard held by one administrator. In a sense, this topic ban is less readily reviewable by others than a block would be. I'll point out that while Fut.Perf. has posted on his own topic page that he wants Hkwon to account for his past behaviors and explain how he will fix them in the future, he hasn't notified Hkwon of this. If I and others hadn't brought this issue up, it must have appeared to Hkwon that he has no recourse to dispute this ban. Fut.Perf. implied that the law has been laid down, and that is the end of the discussion. Even a block has, built into the template itself, a means for disputing the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sanstein has it correct. There have been a number of administrators who've inferred the ability to individually topic ban problematic users: after all, if you have the ability to physically block an editor from editing anything, isn't a topic ban a lesser included power? Consensus has been that no, it's not, and that topic bans should be proposed and discussed appropriately. This was hashed out sometime in the middle of 2009, IIRC, so I have no idea why FP thought it appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• It has been longstanding practice, ever since the ad-hoc imposition of administrative emergency measures on Liancourt Rocks, that the specific field of Korean (and especially Korean-Japanese) disputes is under a de facto "discretionary sanctions" regime analogous to those of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the like. We've had no formal Arbcom case stating such a rule, but given recent cases, there can be hardly any doubt that if the Korean-Japanese disputes were to be brought to Arbcom, exactly such a discretionary sanction rule (as is by now routine) would be formally passed. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is only reasonable that we needn't wait for Arbcom to pass it. The amount of disruption on these articles is clearly comparable to that in other political hotspots. I have made such topic bans on several occasions in the past, and in each case that I can remember they have stuck and were upheld and sometimes enforced by other administrators. Best example I can remember was Bukubku (talk · contribs), who I topic-banned [4], and whose topic ban was confirmed on multiple occasions (appeal 1, (appeal 2) and further enforced by admins such as arbitrator Rlevse [5]. Of course, any such sanction is always open to review by the community, and if anybody wants to question this ban on its merits rather than on the formalities of how it was passed, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the dispute over whether Kimchi is fermented is a Korea-Japan dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like you held Hkwon to a standard (that he should have treated Korean articles as if they were under Arbcom sanctions) he could not possibly have known about, since it's a standard you interpolated from past Arbcom decisions. Is that what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding you? Like I mentioned, I didn't follow Hkwon on the other articles, so I can't say for certain if he deserved it, we can raise that later (although, perhaps Hkwon should do so). I am still worried that many people have posted here that you seem to be taking up a right to act that you don't actually have.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod. Futper: Put this before the community and get a community imposed discretionary sanctions regime put in place. Properly argued, I think such is a likely outcome and will improve matters. But I think you exceeded your authority absent that or absent clear ArbCom direction, even under IAR. Inferring such broad outcomes, even if you are right, arguably may not be sufficient. Don't do this again please. I'm not seeing a lot of defense for your view, and a pretty strong consensus against it. Take that on board and let that be that. (but undo what was done to Hkwon to return to status quo ante) ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear that he returned to edit warring over the lead and sought out mediation to help with the dispute. A topic ban is ridiculous and far beyond FP.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly revealing that Hkwon is not here arguing to have the topic ban removed, perhaps he sees the logic in it and thinks it is much better than a long term/indef block. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, whatever. Given the level of disagreement here, I obviously have to agree that the ban is moot, for now. This is a pity, because I still think it was objectively warranted, and as I said, such sanctions have been used to good effect in the past. I hope people will understand that I acted according to my best understanding of previous practice and implicit community consensus based on earlier cases. - For now, I have informed Hkwon that the ban is moot, but I have converted it into a one-week block (which was amply warranted based on both edit-warring and personal attacks immediately prior to my intervention the other day). This leaves me with the issue of where and how to initiate a formal community decision for the future. I think I won't bother asking for a legitimized community topic ban in this individual case, right now (it will just need to be handled with escalating blocks, the old-fashioned way). But I want the community to impose a general discretionary-sanctions regime on this topic area for the future, which would make measures like the one I attempted procedurally valid. Such discretionary sanction rules have been working well on other national hotspots, and if Arbcom can create them, obviously the community can do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  That sounds punitive and not preventative. They haven't done anything since you issued the ban which was a few days ago and now you're going to turn around and block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Futper: The Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation was raised at WP:AN. It became its own subtopic, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Climate_Change due to the length and number of participants. My suggestion is to review the various sanction regimes, craft a proposal, and bring it to AN (not AN/I) and see how it goes. If the proposal was similar to previous ethnic/nationalistic ones and took on board issues and concerns that folk had raised, I expect it would go well. I certainly would support a properly crafted proposal. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for block of Sennen Goroshi

As a related matter, at this point, I'd have to support a block on him for harassment and stirring the pot. During the last dust-up with Hkwon, Sennen Goroshi was one of the two poking Hkwon until he ended up using some personal attacks. They've been at each other for quite some time. Also during the last go around he was told to stay off Hkwon's talk page [6]. This was made clear to him during the discussion. Since then, he went back to the page 3 times to needlessly post things that others could have posted [7], [8], [9], sennen was then warned not to bait by SarekofVulcan [10]. His messages here seem to be of the same vein and tone for which was warned and directed at the same user. He obviously hasn't gotten the point yet--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and I will note these personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by him from Talk:Kimchi [11], [12], [13]--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, since being warned by an admin, I have not posted anything on Hkwon's talk page. In addition to that, I have commented on Hkwon's disregard of consensus, whilst not stooping to personal attacks at any time. Considering the blatant personal attacks made against me by Hkwon (which has was blocked for) I have been rather restrained in my comments. Baiting does not include making valid comments regarding another user's edits. There are no more problems between Hkwon and myself at this time, blocks are designed to protect Wikipedia - they are not designed to punish editors - blocking me from editing would serve no purpose whatsoever. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be told by an admin not to go to his page. You were told by him not to go there before, you went back 3 times. During which time you picked up an additional warning for baiting by an admin who may not have realized you were told to stay off that page. You also engaged in baiting with melonball last time around to get him blocked. And of course you have no problem with him right now, he's been reblocked punitively by Futureperfect. Baiting can include making valid comments about another user. if there are valid comments to be made about his behaviours, others can do it. You two have an extensive history and your extensive picking at him is unnecessary and only makes the situation worse. There was absolutely no benefit to your comment on why you felt he wasn't commenting on this discussion. I mean, unless you can read minds?--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just trying to work out why any of the above, would be any concern of yours. I'm glad you pointed out that Hkwon requested that I stay away from his talk page [14] - let me just quote his polite request for me to stay away from his page, so that anyone else reading can see exactly how rude I was to ignore such a polite request :: To Sennen goroshi|talk]]: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet. Hkwon (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - I have not posted on his page in two weeks - this complaint is stale and without merit. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on the encyclopedia is everyone's concern. You were told to stay off his page, how he did it is irrelevant. In fact if you'd like to start getting picky about what involves people, the action that got you told to stay off his page was you unnecessarily going over and trying to bait him in the middle of his conversation with me about revert counting. A discussion that was already being handled quite well in which you came to further disrupt, bait and harass. If you want to be transparent, then let's be transparent shall we? [15]. I renew my recommendation and call for a block. You've been disruptive for some time now, you've been intentionally baiting and harassing a user, and clearly don't get it, so as far as I can see that means it will continue just as soon as Hkwon can edit again. So to prevent further disruption you should be blocked until such a time that you demonstrate you clearly understand the the relevant policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND and agree to abide by them.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

and there is nothing stale about this. Your last set of personal attacks were only a few days ago before everything blew up in hkwons face again, and there is no reason to expect that when he is free to continue editing you won't be back on him since you've been continuing this for so long.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you think I should be blocked from editing - I don't - neither of us have any authority to make or deny a block. I do not plan on wasting any more time/bandwidth on this topic, until such time as your request for me to be blocked is granted/denied or something new/valid is brought up. Peace カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana

User:Active Banana has engaged in overzealous editing over the last several days on the List of Annoying Orange episodes page. The revision history page shows four edits reverting to a description of a certain episode that was plagiarized. He also claimed that none of the edits deserved to stand because there was no reliable third party information- a threshold that, quite frankly, cannot be adhered to in this situation due to unique circumstances surrounding the article. This was explained to Active Banana on his talk page in great detail, and instead of responding he dismissed the legitimacy of the circumstances as my alleged unwillingness to follow policy. After I explained it to him again, he threatened me twice on my talk page. I did not appreciate his battle mentality nor did I appreciate his condescending attitude (which I noted as such), and I also did not appreciate the lack of good faith he showed in the edits I made. Placed here because I could not think of where else to put it. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the poster is referring to when talking about Plagiarism. I am unaware that any of the content on the page is taken from elsewhere and not appropriately cited. If there is such content on the page, I fully support removing it/citing it.

On other matters, after receiving a final warning about disruptive editing on my talk page on July 22 from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered [16], the IP responded on my talk page with [17] oops that was a different IP posting in the middle of the conversation with this IP. Active Banana (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might blame that one on me- was a little concerned. (Obviously 78.whatever has some unresolved issues with you, Banana.) However, since you bring up disruptive editing, I noticed a blatant violation of 3RR extending from your eagerness to revert the edits for no legitimate reason. The points I raise are these.

1) The video in question features about as blatantly obvious a Lady Gaga parody as could possibly be. From the dress of the character to the video to there being a song that's a parody of "Bad Romance", it all fits the profile. It's common knowledge, not original research. 2) The video description is lifted word for word from the video itself. That's plagiarizing. If you're going to have a description, it really should be reworded as not to have it look like it was plagiarized. Which is why every other episode's description has been reworded. 3) The reason why I've said extenuating circumstances exist (as ActiveBanana has either not understood or refused to listen to) is because you may never get to 100% with reliable third party sources. This is a problem that exists on an overwhelming majority of episode lists. However, if you were to delete all of the episode lists based on that, you would do a disservice to the people who edit those pages and relay the information. My motives are based on having the free flow of information, not an unwillingness to follow policy, and I believe ActiveBanana is not only failing to assume good faith but engaging in unnecessary edit warring, battles, and an overall lousy attitude regarding something that quite frankly isn't worth the amount of trouble he's causing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the contents initially inserted by other editors are copyright violations, adding "in a parody of Lady Gaga" doesn't fix that issue at all. And the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists in no way is an excuse to allow unsourced crap in yet another article. Active Banana (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that contains only content licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike license. –MuZemike 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're all missing the point here. The description of the video that was posted on the Wiki is the exact same that is on the video. That is plagiarism and it must be reworded. ActiveBanana keeps reverting calling OR and it doesn't apply here. He's dangerously close to another 3RR violation, from what I've seen, and he's also taken on a bully/battle mentality. He is not assuming good faith, he is not allowing for the free flow of information, and I have to start questioning whether this conduct is falling under WP:OWN as well. There is no reason why the information that he has removed from the page should not be listed. None. And I'm starting to wonder why nothing has been done to resolve this yet. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, he's misinterpreting WP:OTHERCRAP. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you're misunderstanding what plagiarism is. Unless you can show that the text itself was copied from elsewhere, it's not plagiarism. Second, you're attempting to insert your own assumption (Lady Pasta = Lady Gaga parody) with no source to back it up. That's the definition of OR. So, without some sourcing, AB appears to be in the right here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Plagiarism charge, corroboration. Description of the episode in question on the Annoying Orange YouTube channel: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." From the summary of the episode on the Annoying Orange episode list: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." Ergo, plagiarism, must be reworded. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Part deux, in regards to the so-called "assumption" that Lady Pasta is a parody of Lady Gaga, one needs to look no further than the song parody attached to the video. The song is a parody written to the tune and rhythm of Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance". I don't understand the overzealous attitude looking for a source when the connection is so blatantly obvious. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Part trois, his removal of the references to "The Ring" for the Annoying Orange episode "The Onion Ring." It is another blatantly obvious parody that Active Banana refuses to recognize due to his edit warring, which is getting dangerously close to WP:OWN. I show you the following: "The Onion Ring" thumbnail and the logo from The Ring. That should be obvious to anyone with two eyes that it's a direct parody. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So, reword the description on the page for that episode. Simple fix, which didn't require all this drama. As to Pasta/Gaga, what's "obvious" to you isn't obvious to everyone. If the reader isn't familiar with Lady Gaga, why should they take your word that this is an "obvious" parody? We need sources for just this thing. Same with the "Onion Ring" episode. Until you have a source, calling it "obvious" is useless to anyone who isn't familiar with Ringu. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns now addressed by rewording [18]. Are we done here? Or do we still need to address the "extenuating circumstances" of "Well there arent any reliable sources for this topic, so we shouldnt be required to provide them"? Active Banana (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the point wasn't about the edits, it was about the overpolicing of the page by Active Banana, his condescending attitude, his unwillingness to assume good faith, and his threatening stance to allow his edits to stand. Quite frankly, I should've called his bluff and risked the block because his reasoning is still weak. I explained the extenuating circumstances and he refused to listen and STILL refuses to listen, as you can see from his response here. Personally, I may give you the Lady Gaga thing (although I'd be hardpressed to find anyone, based on the way her actions have made news lately, who doesn't know who she is and there's a song in the video that's a blatant parody of "Bad Romance"), but just look at the pictures again. The logos are exactly the same, the plot is exactly the same (watch a video tape, then you get a phone call, then something lifechanging happens)- so tell me how it isn't a parody. I'm lost. It's not like the references were hidden and made for someone with a keen eye to figure out. The people behind Annoying Orange made it clear from the beginning what their intent was- to parody Lady Gaga and The Ring. I don't understand how those can't be considered obvious references. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you call "overpolicing" removing content that doesnt meet WP:V and WP:OR then I am going to continue "overpolicing" because "reliable sources dont exist for this topic so we dont need to provide them", is NOT an "extenuating circumstance" that overrides our policies. Active Banana (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've told you several times that was NOT my reasoning. If you don't want to listen then maybe you shouldn't have moderator powers anymore because it's obvious to me you're abusing them for no good reason. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then this IS over because I have not ever abused admin powers because I am not an admin and therefore have no admin powers to abuse. Have a good day! Active Banana (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt like I was condescending towards you, and I probably was. Active Banana (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted on the condescension. But then why did you threaten to block me? --173.54.204.113 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed the standard warning templates on your page letting you know that the continued disruptive editing would lead to your being blocked. Thats not "threatening" its standard procedure. Let people know what they are doing wrong and let them know the consequences if they continue doing it. Active Banana (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Once was a warning. You took it to threat level, and considering you didn't have the authority to do so you should have kept your mouth shut. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's one of the reasons why we're here.--173.54.204.113 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, when you continued to ignore the information, I escalated the series of warnings to you, as every editor has the right to do. I dont have the tools to actually place the block, but when someone who does have the tools sees that you have been warned about the consequences a number of times and have decided to continue the improper behavior, then they will use their mop and place the block. Same effect.Active Banana (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you don't have the right to throw that kind of power around. Besides the point, you've been rather disruptive in editing yourself, if a reading of your talk page is any indication. I ignored your warnings because there was no reason for you to be giving them. I eventually gave up because I didn't want to run the risk of getting blocked by you. Now that I know you didn't have the power to do so, I can go further and ask the AN/I to review your behavior. Which I am asking. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There isnt any "power being thrown around". There is you being told of how your actions are not compatible with our policies and the consequence if you continue that behavior. You made the sensible choice and decided not to continue the disruptive behavior. And I thank you for that. Active Banana (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I made the wrong choice because my behavior wasn't disruptive. I SHOULD have filed this report sooner, once you started threatening me. YOU should've held your tongue and not claimed to have power that you didn't possess. You committed 3RR twice, threatened me three times, and refused to acknowledge your own disruptive editing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good day to you. I dont think anything else will be accomplished here. Active Banana (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

173, please read WP:VANDAL. AB was well within his rights to place those warning templates. There's nothing else for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So wait, he threatens me and gets off scot-free? That's screwed up. Especially since I know of one other case where someone was blocked for allegedly threatening someone else with a warning because said person didn't know/remember the template used to give the warning. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You were not "threatened," you were warned that your behavior was being disruptive and could lead to a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can this be closed now?

There is heat but not light. The IP didn't like the way he was treated, but was explained that these are Wikipedia norms. I'm not looking at evidence as I don't want to involve myself, but from what I have seen Active Banana hasn't done anything worth sanctioning (and neither has the IP). I think both parties can walk away from this. If the IP needs to keep flogging he can bring more evidence to some kind of dispute resolution. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:hammy64000 - constant personal attacks, religious vilification, etc

Resolved

 - Indef block reinstated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

On the 6th of July user:Hammy64000 was indefinitely blocked for harassment and personal attacks by user:SarekOfVulcan. After they were blocked, these personal attacks of an extremely abusive nature continued on their talk page as that is the only remaining place with editing privileges.see this edit after being blocked. They were then subsequently blocked from editing their talk page by the same administrator. However, on the 19th of July the administrator user:kaldari unblocked Hammy64000 without any visible discussions writing "user has pledged to edit cooperatively" on the log. Following the unexplained unblock I have made no contact with Hammy64000 knowing their abusive nature yet they have begun with adding false warning templates to my page. They were removed and they were reverted by Hammy64000. It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs [19] and [20]. Something is not right here regarding the unblock with no retraction of the personal attacks and the continued intimidation through the abuse of warning templates. --Ari (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All I really want is Hammy64000 to agree to stop harassing me - directly or indirectly. I have chosen to avoid them and I would like this reciprocated. --Ari (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am preparing my response with diffs. I was blocked, it is true. But I am not continuing any offensive behavior. I discussed the block removal with another admin. by email, before Kaldari removed the block. He provided many diffs, which I researched. This was an email account of 'excirial'. I did not vandalize anyone and I never have done vandalizm since I started working here. About the warning template that I gave Ari, I don't know how it can be defined as false. First Sarek accused me of creating the template, but it was already created before I found it. [21] Also, I can provide many diffs which show countless warnings on my own page from Ari and SpigotMap when all I was doing was trying to oppose a merge without consensus. [22] I will provide diffs to show my edits and discussion during this time. I believe they were not disruptive. I know for a fact that at least one was doctored. The corresponding warning is here.[23] Here is the diff.[24] I never touched the Islam section. I believe this was changed to coincide with SpigotMap's warning. I believe this constitutes WP:GAME, [25]but it was never reported. I don't think the previous block should be part of this discussion if I am not going against Wikipedia standards at this time. I do object to Ari89 defining my "nature" as "abusive."I will provide diffs shortly.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not correct to say "they have begun adding templates." For one thing I am only one person. And I only gave him one and replaced it when he deleted it from his page. I have been trying to deal with this article all by myself. Ari89 does not respond. I did some research and found applicable policy guidelines. I thought I had a right to give him a warning on his page. I put it on the article page and that was a mistake. I did not replace it after Sarek deleted it. But please see the discussion on my talk page. [26] Sarek put the heading "Disruptive editing" which hasn't been determined. I changed it and he changed it back several times. This was at the same time that user:Moreno oso was informing me that Ari could do anything he wants with his own talk page. I did not replace Ari's warning after that. But user:Moreno oso then acted as though I was still deserving of a block. I don't think I am.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You continued the very vile harassment after you were blocked. Now that you are unblocked and I have made no contact with you the false templates begin.

I called your behaviour abusive because that is the persona you have demonstrably made known, especially noting the above.

Finding diffs of who knows what will not address my concerns - unless there is now a policy that says you can make unprovoked vile attacks such as you repeatedly calling me "a liar", "thief", "fraud", "refuse", "low-life" among many other things.[27] --Ari (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the offense I was blocked for. I have already said I expected to be blocked. I have already discussed this with an admin. and another admin. chose to unblock me. I have not repeated anything of the kind. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please see the beginning of my contributions here. [28] I worked for weeks on the article with no working discussion page. Then on the same day I first heard from Ari he merged the article without consensus and without provided details about his objections, even though I asked for them. I think I was very patient in a trying situation. To define me as basically abusive is not true. You can only do that if you ignore all the other contributions.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammy64000, what made you think that User:Ari89 has a "conflict of interest" related to Miraculous births? I'm having a little trouble imagining what that would entail; does Ari89 get personal or financial benefit from such births? Normally, we don't 'template' people who already know the rules, but instead, we use personal notes to discuss our disagreements. Why did you decide to use a template, instead of simply asking Ari89 about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is possible, since he is a Christian and since he seemed to object to comparisons of mythological births with Christianity. Also the merge was extreme because of its abrupt nature and the newly merged article was immediately changed to add Judeo-Christian births at the top. The warning does not say I must prove it--but he does have reason to organize the article in this way. Also, conflict of interest does not require financial benefit. It has to do with neutrality. Please see the description. [29] In addition, I have done the majority of the discussion since the day of the merge. He tends to not respond. If he is saying he has had no contact with me because of the abusive language, this is not true. He didn't respond before this happened either. Please see the earticle discussion to see if I was ever able to discuss such things with him. Please see my attempt at a compromise here.[30]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing you have correct about me above is that I am a Christian. You have made quite an issue of this fact, for example:

• "You are an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia. You are completely off the wall and anyone can see it." -Hammy64000 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "You are an abomination, a travesty of a human being and an embarrassment as a Christian." -Hammy64000 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• "I have tried to warn you about the bad reputation things like this give to Christianity, but you don't seem to care...You are just validating my concern about how degenerate Christianity has become. Truth and goodness is real. No matter how dark you are, it is real." --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "This is not the death toll of Christianity. That happened long ago. This is the faint echo of that tolling bell. If you are the face of Christianity, Ari, then Christianity has become rigid and perfectly hollow." --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a few reasons why I see you as an abusive editor.

On the issue of Abrahamic religions being at the top (the alphabet does start with A) and does that mean I am also a Muslim?

re me not responding to you, I did there at 11:38, 17 April 2010 which states: "I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here, Hammy64000." (not the direct reference to you)... --Ari (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy, having received answers to your questions to act as though you never received answers and do something drastic like merging an article. If you repeat the offense for which I was blocked over and over, and add a little more each time, it is still not a fresh instance. Again, all of my contributions should be taken into account. Ari did not do the merge properly. He made it look like I had no part in it. Here is Wnt's opinion:

Don't cancel your account just yet! Alright, it's obvious that I was wrong about this one. But you didn't help things by saying over and over that Ari "moved" the article - on Wikipedia, that's different than merging the article, which is what he did. And it's clear now looking at the last version of that article - which still does exist in the history - [4] and seeing your contributions in that article's history, that this is where you did do just about all the work that I thought he'd done. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I'll add that the "manual merge" - which I should have caught in the article history - wasn't done up to the current standard for WP:copying within Wikipedia, which recommends that the source article be credited in the edit summary, and notes be added to the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Additionally, you could have reverted the proposed merge and requested discussion of it on the talk page (see Help:Merging). Wnt (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)"

I did revert the merge later--after Ari redirected it so you could not longer see the original. Then I was said to be edit warring.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy, none of what you have said is addressing my issue. Is that the WP policy that states that you have every right to personally attack me over and over without consequence? --Ari (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the request for an "unmerge" discussion. It was requested again after I was unblocked. While I was blocked Wnt and Ari had a short conversation and Ari redirected the article again so the original can't be seen.[31]

Also, here are links to diffs showing that Ari deleted the sources, which I provided at his insistence--at least twice.

"After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [32] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [33] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [34] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [35] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [36] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The offenses for which I was blocked were rude and I have never tried to make an excuse for them. I fully intended to never come back here again. But after I was blocked, the protection was removed on the virgin birth (mythology) article. I thought it was protected from Ari, but apparently it was protected from me. Also, I had a problem with SpigotMap's part in the block. He has been harassing me on my talk page since April and both he and Ari have threatened repeatedly to block me. For the block, SpigotMap then requested that Sarek of Vulcan block me. My argument for the unblock was based on policy violations involved in SpigotMap's conflict of interest. I said then and I'll say again, I expected to be blocked. I don't make any excuses for the attack that got me blocked. I'm only here now because this is all so wrong.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the diffs for April 13 and 14 because I got so many warnings on my talk page for those dates. On this one [37] it looks like I deleted material about Moses, etc. Please go to that diff and click "next edit." I never deleted any Christian or Judeo-Christian material. I did not wish to participate at all because of the animosity of the merge. All I did in those days was add sources because Ari said he was going to re-write and delete material. So I don't even know if my links above still go to the place where he deleted my sources. Then on the 19 is the diff where I apparently messed with the Islam part. I never did. I provided that diff above.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I clicked link 94 above that use to go to his deleted sources. Now it looks like he was "improving" the article by adding Egyptian material. Here is a version of the original material.[38] He did not improve this material. On the contrary, he threatened to delete it. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Miraculous births looked like before the merge.[39]Hammy64000 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to see changes to the revision history? If not, evidence for any dispute process would be impossible.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided the links to Ari's source deletions here [40] at 2:27 on July 3. At that time, these links showed his deletions of my sources.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to Virgin birth (mythology) is number 2 here.[41] I have it on my user page or else no one would be able to see it at all. Also, some of the discussion can only be found there.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It was here [42] that we had the following conversation about sources. It was at this time that Ari put citation requests all through the article and threatened to delete material.

Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You may not know this, but quotes and ideas attributed to a book that are not the main thesis require page numbers. This is basic referencing, and not a conspiracy theory. Once again, calm down and think for a minute before ranting. --Ari (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theory comment is beyond old. Why do you keep saying it? Do you think it makes me look bad, because I'm not the one who is having a meltdown here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000, once again you are not addressing the issue with your extensive monologue. Complaining about a content dispute when the issue is your abusive behaviour is obvious side stepping of the issue. --Ari (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting clarification. Was I brought here because you object to the unblock, or because I recently put a template on your talk page? Also, I would like to request links to the vandalism you mentioned taking place on your talk page. The two links you provided are not anonymous IP's. Also, they were not vandalism. It has been suggested that some sort of vandalism is connected with this ANI and I think it needs to be cleared up. Thanks.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

Neither of you two comment here please, you're both just arguing back and forth and nothing is really coming of it. I am therefore requesting this section be reserved for comment by an uninvolved administrator, as that is the only way this is going to go anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Those large chunks of varying indents is actually just Hammy64000 arguing with himself which seems to obscure the actual issue. I have set it outin my few posts having provided diffs and extracts to quite vile abuse. I will respond to requests for more from the backlog but hopefully this will be all from me. --Ari (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ari (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What did I just ask? This section is reserved for an uninvolved admin, or other uninvolved admins to make comment. It is not for you to continue the argument above with a snipe at the other editor. Please leave it be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an uninvolved Admin who has waded thru the above, I have to ask: is there anything here that can't be solved by requiring both editors to avoid one another? (And on a related note, someone ought to create a template which produces the following output: "There are {{Numberofarticles}} on Wikipedia for people to improve, so it should be easy both of you to avoid one another. If one or both of you can't do this, we can always block both of you until at least one of you learns how to do this." This seems to be the first solution for many issues presented here.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89 on above

Thankyou for the input, llywrch. Avoiding Hammy64000 has been my response for quite some time, however, he continued to post personal abuse against myself on other user pages including his own. Even above I have made clear that I am not going to engage in an off topic content dispute despite their numerous posts/copy/pastes above. Hammy was eventually indefinite blocked for this abusive behaviour. He was subsequently unblocked without any retraction of these personal attacks. I intentionally made no contact with Hammy64000 since his block, yet the other day he started harassing me with false warning templates which he also reverted after I removed them. This was the last straw - I quite forcefully asked him to not post on my user page again and came straight to this noticeboard. Threatening to ban me unless I do exactly what I have been doing doesn't sound like a solution. Maybe asking him to stop the personal attacks and posting on my user talk page would be better. I certainly have no intention to make contact with him on his talkpage after the vile abuse I have received so my reciprocation is without question. --Ari (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, all I want is Hammy64000 to leave me alone. I do not care about convincing him that he has done something wrong as user:Daedalus969 mistakenly believes. I am simply sick of being harassed and called things such as "a wolf, a fraud, and thief, a liar, a plagiarist, a punk, and creep, a low-life nobody", "a fat, ugly, stinky piece of garbage with bad teeth", "refuse with a computer", "stupid puke", "an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia", etc. This isn't asking for anything more than wp guidelines such as wp:npa and wp:civil require from editors. If Hammy64000 agrees to simply leave me alone, I could not care less about them being blocked, cautioned, etc. That may be selfish, but my time is better suited to continuing to contribute to Wikipedia than following this noticeboard. --Ari (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I said below the admin. should end this--please don't keep printing that stuff. It does make me uncomfortable. I was blocked for that and nothing like that is going to be repeated by me. Last night, I thought I might be saying something peaceable for once. You say you are "sick of being called" those things. Why do you keep printing them? Maybe I'm missing something, but it isn't clear whether you want me sanctioned, or whether you want to clarify that you are the victim, or whether your feelings are hurt and you want an apology. It seems to me that you want me blocked again, or that you want the discussion to be only about that. I have already said I can't excuse that and I haven't tried to excuse it.Hammy64000 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But then if you get poked in the eye by a typing finger enough times, you sometimes have to modify your principles. I won't excuse the offense, but I'll try to put it in perspective. I started working on Virgin birth (mythology) in January or February. I ended up doing the whole thing in publc because the whole thing was a lot more complex than I thought. You merged it April 13. I tried every way I knew to rectify this situation. I wasn't blocked until July.

My comments were inexcusable and obviously against Wikipedia standards. But they were only aimed at you. On the other hand, this comment on your user page[43] seems to indicate a general editing philosophy:

User:Ari89 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia: where the unfounded opinion of any ignorant hick with a computer finds a voice...

And indeed, I am not the only editor you have made hopping mad:

[redacted]

You deleted this from your talk page twice.Hammy64000 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef block re-instated. He deleted it twice, so you thought it was a good idea to post it here? Between that and your comments about Ari's Christianity yesterday, I don't think you'll be ready to edit collaboratively here anytime soon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000

I will be happy to avoid Ari89 in the future. When you suggest that we have no further contact are you saying I should give up on this article? That is what will have to happen. It seems a little disingenuous for him to treat his current avoidance of me as a virtue. Recently, I have been trying to find a way to stop the stonewalling on the Miraculous births discussion. He has been asked by another administrator to discuss an unmerge, but I get no response.[44][45] That is the reason for the template. It was not a false warning template. He should not keep saying this. His response was this ANI.

I have not been told whether I am here because I was unblocked against his wishes, or because of the template. My understanding is that it was the template. This seems obvious on my talk page. But "continued abuse" is all I hear. The template was not abuse. It seems this would have to be made clear for this discussion to make sense. But I see we will never be able to work together. I won't approach him again for any reason.Hammy64000 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at your links to the vandalism. The IP addresses, 77.31.85.207, 213.146.172.146 are not mine. This one [46] looks like Morenooso did it. He says he's reverting, but look at the actual revision. Why did you say, "It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs.." Why should that be noted here, Ari? That is not even my style. And the swearing...If nothing else, the premise of my arguments, my writing style, should have told you something about me as a person. You never had a sense of me at all, which is just sad.Hammy64000 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear in my initial post - your harassment which is not limited to personal attacks and the resurgence with unprovoked false warning templates. But I guess this settles it. If you are prepared to:

1. Leave my talk page alone (e.g. personal attacks, false warning templates) unless there is a legitimate reason and you act civilly. I will obviously reciprocate.
2. Not make any more personal attacks or derogatory religious comments about myself or other editors. This includes your own talk page such as you did here among other occasions, other user pages and article talk pages.

In essence, just a call for you to adhere to wp:NPA and wp:civil in contrary to your past behaviour. Then hopefully the past will stay behind us. --Ari (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking to Daedalus and IIywrch. I think it would be more appropriate for them to sum this up.

I see this will never go anywhere and that is why I said I will stay away from you--not because I agree with anything I have seen from you in the past. You seem to want to talk about an offense for which I was already blocked. How is this relevant to the template which led to this ANI or to your actions since the first day I saw you? And editors have a right to give you warning templates on your talk page. You have deleted such warnings from other editors too. I have said the template was not abuse and not intended as abuse and it is as though I have said nothing. Further I can document repeated requests from me since April 13 that you stop leaving warnings on my talk page and you flatly refused.

I will stay away from you, but you speak as though we will go on to collaborate. You know you will avoid this as you have been doing. Of course, you don't have to warn me to stay off the article because all you have to do is stonewall and revert changes as you have been doing.

I will stay away from you, but your pretense of good faith should not go unchallenged. Hammy64000 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And I must say something about your heading "Religious vilification". All that anyone can know for certain is that you claim you are a Christian. In truth, I have a great deal of respect for Christianity. It is you I have issues with. In order to pull off your claim that I have vilified your religion--which you have stated as a fact without knowing anything about me--you would actually have to be a Christian or even a religious person--rather than just say you are. But is this possible to prove on Wikipedia? It is like saying you drive an expensive car. Talk is a lot cheaper than the car. All that can really be seen and so all that really matters is the relevance and fairness of your editing practices. I am just amazed at your claims to some kind of precious position here.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you two please give this a rest? Ari, you are not going to convince Hammy he has done anything wrong, or convince him to 'fess up' that he has, Hammy, Ari isn't going to back off.

You are not going to convince each other of what you're trying to convince each other of, so instead of continuing this pointless bickering, stop posting here and only reply to an admin when, and if they comment. Otherwise, you are likely to get both of yourselves blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't block me until you read this. Can't we just wrap this up? We have both agreed to avoid each other. Even if I got the article unmerged at this point, who would be able to read it without thinking of this fight to the death? I tried to start a discussion about content and here we are trying to defend ourselves and mostly, trying to get someone on our side. Sometimes I think there are maybe ten guys on computers somewhere playing spin the wannabe writer. I've heard the phrase around here, "He doesn't know how it works,"--meaning tricks and mental torture I presume. I'm not talking about Ari here. I'm talking about the Wikipedia set-up where no one has any protection and information is dead last on the scale of importance. Maybe this is amusing to some people, but it's pretty traumatic for the majority. Please don't make us wait like dogs for a bone. This has gone on too long.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, a wiki-fight to the death would be kinda cool. Just sayin'. HalfShadow 03:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted my comment--suddenly seems way too final.Hammy64000 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Caden

I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I actually don't know a lot about Caden, but on his allegations of a conspiracy: As I pointed out here (which EyeSerene responded to here), there is some funny (as in bad funny) activity going on by the group against Blablaaa. No administrative misconduct by Eyeserene that I've seen but the understanding of WP:SYNTH is not what I would expect of an admin (see EyeSerene's response for details). People here might be surprised at what EyeSerene considered forumshopping (EyeSerene admitted in the above response that Blablaaa really wasn't forumshopping at that point): Blablaa raises an issue about a WWII battle at a talkpage where people disagree, discusses it a bit at the disagreeing people's user talk pages, then raises it at WP:MILHIST. EyeSerene argued that when Blablaa raised the issue at WP:MILHIST it was forumshopping - that is, the first attempt to seek uninvolved help in a dispute was forumshopping. This has to raise eyebrows and suggests that EyeSerene may not be the best person to be issuing unilateral blocks for disruptive editing. EyeSerene has a decently nice internet tone and seems willing to admit mistakes, and I do think everyone involved will be able to work it out, but I felt compelled to mention this because I think these interpretations of policy are off and I think it can be helpful to discuss policy clarifications. I strongly suspect the editor EyeSerene blocked in question was disruptive, but there's some overall behavior in regard to British-German WWII battles that suggests to me that there is a pro-British spin on the articles. Considering we are the English Wikipedia, it's not all that surprising, but potential English bias also an obvious blind spot that we can watch for. And it's not like admitting that the Germans might have had a good battle or destroyed a few extra tanks is supportive of Nazis or anything either. II | (t - c) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

II, might I ask for some diffs of this alleged pro-British/Allied bias? Yourself, Blablaaa and Caden have stated this numerous times, but I've yet to see any diffs to back this up; you yourself have said several times that you haven't look deeply into the matter (ie Kurfurst and the potential area of bias). Do you have any evidence of this please? It would be interesting to see if there is such a bias, and what could be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had a response here but I guess it didn't end up being submitted. Did you read my RfC, where I documented fairly clearly a case where original research was clearly used to support a more favorable interpretation of a certain battle, yet nobody supported Blablaaa in the effort. Blablaaa recently brought my attention to the Battle of Jutland which, I think, is a similar case - Blablaaa presents 90 sources with quotes which call the battle a tactical victory for the Germans and a strategic victory for the English, yet there's no budging from the status quo of "tactical inconclusive" except for a single editor. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I respectfully add that although you've made quite a serious charge about my interpretation of a fundamental article writing policy at the RfC and again here, you haven't actually explained anywhere why you think I don't understand WP:SYNTH. I gave you a full explanation of why I believe your take on the policy is not entirely correct in this case and is out of step with good article-writing practice. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your understanding of WP:SYNTH is and why you think I'm mistaken. Obviously ANI is probably not the best place for this, so I'd be happy to take it somewhere more appropriate. However, I do appreciate that you've indicated elsewhere that you don't have the time to endlessly debate this, so if you'd prefer to spend your time doing something more productive I completely understand. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining and I appreciate that you have remained calm in spite of what could some editors in this emotionally-charged website would view as personal attacks. The honest truth is that I was hoping you would revise your explanation of SYNTH/OR, since your major argument was apparently that since the OR was not used "to advance a position" and it occurred in the lead, it was acceptable. Let me know if you think I've just set up a straw man there. I added my response on why I don't think that makes sense. Summarizing my response for anyone viewing here, I think you need to keep in mind that every sentence in Wikipedia articlespace advances a position, even if the position is a simple fact. The lead actually needs be more directly supported by the sources, not less, regardless of what you've experienced. This makes sense because introducing misleading or original facts (which don't come from actual scholars directly) into the lead is very dangerous - it can seriously confuse the factual record on a topic. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read your response at the RfC. I'll reply there because I think this is going beyond the scope of ANI. However, from your post there (and above) I think we may be more in agreement that it first appeared. Thank you for taking the time on this, EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi comment

Just thought I'd drop in here to point out that user Caden has been to my user page and practically threatened me because I questioned user Blablaa's unanimous editing. Furthermore, I have seen SOME articles where use Blablaa has edited with a large amount of sources, but I've seen others where he clearly mis-represents the sources and simply mis-quotes then and claims he's reading out of a book. What is more opaque is that EVERY edit he makes understates German losses and claims the source that quotes the lowest German losses and highest Allied losses is the only worthy source. This is essentially contrary to academic opinion since the historians he quotes are often relatively unheard of or simply collating previously debunked figures. I would go into more depth, but this is about Caden, so I'll reiterate on my relationship with him. User BlaBlaa and I got into a conflict where I felt he was unanimously editing an article so I checked his talk page only to find he's repeatedly been blocked for uncivil behaviour and disruptive editing. There I find the only person supportive of him is User Caden. I comment there. Soon after I have a threat from Caden on my talk page.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

... Facepalm WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?

Sorry, SF, what Caden said was not a "threat" by any stretch. In fact, I'd say he was pretty well justified being upset at your comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what does "editing unanimously" entail? Did you mean to say "anonymously?" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy needs to be blocked per Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks:

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted".

Calling someone a Nazi is on a similar level as calling someone a pedophile. Simply because someone argues that the Germans were superior militarily or whatever doesn't make that person a Nazi and such comments should not be allowed. Further, as Blablaaa has documented, Senor's inconsistent use of a source suggests that Senor actually did not know what he were talking about and may be misrepresenting sources. II | (t - c) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: He means "unilaterally" I think. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if several participants in the RfC moderated their comments. I note, for instance, that Caden labeled me "anti-German" (among several other slurs) in his contribution to the RfC. All the RfC seems to be establishing is that this situation is probably going to end up at Arb Com. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nick. Things have got over-heated in places, but in Blablaaa's defence I've never seen anything to indicate he has an extreme right-wing agenda. In Senor Freebie's defence, while his comment was not WP:CIVIL he didn't call Blablaaa a Nazi; many people, incorrectly in my view, loosely refer to the Germans during the 1930s & 40s as "the Nazis". Perhaps we could usefully invoke Godwin's Law and close this thread? EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only happened to see this because I was here to comment on something else. Godwin's law is fit for stirring up thought, but invoking it to end a discussion is almost always mistaken, whether or not the discussion should indeed be ended for more meaningful reasons. Calling someone "pro-Nazi," without a ream or two of diffs to back it up, is not on here. I've both heard and read a lot about the German military in the early 1940s and by most accounts, it was better equipped, educated and motivated than any other in the world at that time. Saying so is not "pro-Nazi." That it was built up and dispatched to what can easily be called evil ends is widely understood. That Germany lost the 1939-45 war through overwhelming attrition and inept leadership can likewise be cited. The meaning of the word Nazi has become so widened and fuzzy as to be almost meaningless in most contexts where it is hurled, other than as a wanton slur, meant only to halt discussion, much as the nouns racist and pedophile and I might also throw in, troll as to anything online. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's absolutely no place for racial, sexist, political or any other types of slur on Wikipedia. I was charitably making the assumption that since Blablaaa has never displayed any pro-right wing bias that I've seen, Senor Freebie couldn't be making such an unfounded accusation and had therefore chosen his words poorly and used "Nazi" when he meant "German" (as many people wrongly do). If he needs to be sanctioned for his attack, so be it - I've blocked editors myself for similar violations of NPA. My reference to Godwin's Law - an internet joke - was a light-hearted attempt to take some of the heat out of the uncivil accusations and counter-accusations that have been thrown around during the RfC, none of which are helpful. It wasn't an attempt to end the discussion or avoid scrutiny, it was poorly considered and I apologise that it came across as badly it clearly did. I'll leave attempts at wit to editors better qualified than I am in future. EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was me. I'm likely too over-keen about Godwin's law because there was a time here on en.WP when it was indeed invoked by some to squash threads into archives. Doing so has always been mistaken, since Godwin meant it to be funny (as you did) from the beginning and moreover, it only has to do with the truly high likelihood of the topic coming up sooner or later if any thread goes on long enough, but often got wrongly cited as meaning "now that you've brought it up, we're done here." Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it has actually been seriously invoked to close discussions - that seems a bizarre interpretation of its intent to me. I have to confess my heart sank a bit when I saw your post though. I've been accused of all sorts of misconduct on the RfC, one repeated theme being that I've tried to quash discussion and defended (including misusing my admin tools) misconduct from editors where I support their alleged POV. I read your post and thought "Oh crap... I know where this is going to end being quoted :(" Not your fault in any way - it was my own goal and I've given myself a good hard kick - but I hope it explains any over-defensiveness in my earlier rely. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My botch! I was too eager to hop up on the ol' soapbox and preach about a pet peeve of mine :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, no worries :) We've all got our peeves - mine tend to emerge Grumpy Old Men-style at random moments, usually in response to handcream or mobile phone adverts on TV (I mean, thousands of years of human civilisation and this is the pinnacle of our aspirational development?) It tends to attract what I can only describe as 'old-fashioned' looks from my kids... EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: [47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63] and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. [64], [65], [66].)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. [67][68], [69] are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. [70], [71], [72].)

I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation [73] from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

What I would like to see is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agreeing to stop removal of links to Media Matters, and stop reverting people who undo his removals. Finally, if consensus can be reached that Media Matters is a reliable source, I would like him to undo all his removals, as he has created a huge amount of cleanup work for people to do (but this may be asking a bit much). --LK (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. After reviewing the edits above, I would question the inclusion of a lot of the material. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3 ^talk 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Wikipedia policy and perhaps join me.

As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Wikipedia works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.

As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?

I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Wikipedia inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.

Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have dedicated a large part of your time over the last 2 months to removing MMfa sourcing, I suggest that you self revert and argue each removal in turn. You have been told on numerous occasions that your interpretation of WP:RS seems to be counter the consensus interpretation, notably around May 3rd. You could have saved yourself alot of time and effort if you had started by searching through the WP:RSN archives. They are, at the very least, a source which can be used with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".

And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."

I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.

I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-application of WP:TROUT

Just want to chime in with a vicious self-scolding. Badger, edit summaries like this are not helpful. Apologies to any and all who took offense. Badger Drink (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish.[74] If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Wikipedia statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made [a statement] on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer [makes same statement] on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish.[75] You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia^♫♪ 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's participation at WP:RS/N

I have just realized that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling knew full well that he was systematically removing reliable sources against the consensus at WP:RS/N. As these links show,[76],[77],[78],[79] he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him. And yet he decided to systematically remove Media Matters citations even against consensus. This makes his behavior much less acceptable than I had previously thought it to be. I strongly support an indefinite block unless he agrees to reverse all his removals of these citations, and to not remove Media Matters citations in the future. LK (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him.

What are you characterizing as "Consensus" from those RS/N discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concensus that I ever see from those discussions is a concensus from those in favor of MMfA saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to treat MRC/Newsbusters and MMfA as two sides of the same coin. Until ideological editors agree that they should and must be treated equally these type of partisan battles will NEVER end. As long as one side feels that the other sides is getting preferential treatment there will continue to be edit wars. Unfortunately I don't see any give on the MMfA side. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through the 3 (the 4th is a repeat of the 1st) diffs cited by LK, above. I see no consensus. If I can draw a mood from them considered as a whole, it is this: Cite MMfA's opinion rarely, only if their opinion is somehow relevant to the article. Cite them for facts only if the original source is unavailable. I, of course, haven't looked at each of LaEC's edits but I've examined quite a few including this sequence:

[80] American Family Association 13 June 2009

[81] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[82] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[83] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[84] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[85] American Family Association 25 May 2010

[86] American Family Association 27 May 2010

and see nothing wrong with this. Or any other edits. Have I missed something? Anthony (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

It's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive editing through mass removal of citations without discussion and against consensus. This constitutes tendentious editing, disruptive cite-tagging and a rejection of community input, all classic signs of disruptive editing. He has continued to do so even after this discussion began. He has a lengthy history of previous blocks, including one indefinite block for legal threats (since rescinded). Given this continuous and lengthy pattern of disruptive behaviour, it's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling hasn't learned anything from his previous blocks. I therefore propose an indefinite block of this editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Since it seems to have caused some confusion, please note that I'm proposing an indefinite block here, not an infinite one. If LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is willing to agree not to continue such actions, he should be allowed to continue editing, but without such an assurance a block becomes necessary as a preventative measure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support or possibly Restrict. If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA.

I don't recall that specific descriptive being used (do you have a quote or two?) nor your paraphrase summary of recent RS/N discussions related to World Net Daily. Being that as it may, MMfA is being recognized (finally I might add) for what it is...and its RS status, unfettered by any other consideration, appears to now be history in Wikipedia. MMfA is a hyper-partisan source and its ubiquitous presence in this Wikipedia medium should give ANYONE pause. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? Mainstream media outlets routinely source or credit MMfA in their stories. A google news search will show you recent items by CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, NY Dailyt times - all referencing MMfA. Please see WP:YESPOV and understand that we are to reflect what might seem to you the apparent liberal bias of reality. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is misplaced. In the examples you cite, substantive third-party sourcing can validate MMfA content just as RS third-party can validate WND, MRC, etc etc. But you place the NPOV cart before the WP:V/WP:UNDUE horse. NPOV relates to the balanced presentation of content, not to the POV of the source itself (which you appear to wrongly suggest I'm asserting). Like all hyper-partisan content from either wing, reliable third-party sourcing is mandated by WP:V/WP:UNDUE.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When you take in to use language like 'hyper-partisan' I was compelled to believe that you were arguing from the context of POV. You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan. News outlets routinely reference MMfA, this is not the case with the others you mention. From the ES' of LaEC in his numerous (~50+) removals he argued from the position of an imperfect grasp of WP:RS and how MMfA can in fact be used - albeit with particular attribution in contentious areas subject to editor discretion. He had been informed of this months ago, but continued with IDHT removals, that is why we are here. Unomi (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The MRC is also referenced by news outlets. It's a no-brainer that the left-leaning news outlets are going to reference MMfA more often than they reference the MRC. Drrll (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan.

Your opinion is simply not shared anymore by generally half of the participants in the most recent RS/N's on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Unomi (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who apparently holds MMfA as a breed apart from the hyper-partisan crowd. But you could start here.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstood what I meant then, it is not a matter of their perceived political leanings, they could be equidistant from the center as perfectly as one could want, and they would still not be equivalent, that very archive spells that out with the citations in mainstream sources, the Columbia Review of Journalism article and the quality of the editors involved in MMaF and MRC respectively. Unomi (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite...can't say it any better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite and Badger Drink, not necessarily infinite, but we need to break through the IDHT once and for all. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not true. As the discussion on the talk pages of many of these articles show, consensus is that the removed citations were perfectly fine. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me a couple of examples, please? Anthony (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were informed of this AN/I thread here and you've already participated in it, so you have nothing to complain about on that score. If you believe that MMFA is generally not a reliable source then you need to raise that at WP:RSN, not unilaterally attempt to purge it from Wikipedia against the complaints of other editors. You've caused a substantial amount of disruption and damage in the meantime, and that needs to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I was not informed of this effort to block me, indefinitely, no less. It was you who said on my Talk page, "Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)" By that time I had stopped. Yet here you are yourself seeking to blocking me indefinitely despite your very own words! What shameful behavior! Are you proud of your actions?

Only 13 minutes after leaving me your message, you moved to indefinitely block me. 09:24, 25 July 2010 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (307,425 bytes) (→Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations: - propose indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) (undo) How many "mass-removing citations without discussions" could I cease doing in 13 minutes??

This is a serious witch hunt. Thanks, ChrisO, for helping to evidence it so well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add this. I see Black Kite has said I was POV pushing. That is not true. Black Kite asked me that on my Talk page. I guess he did not wait for an answer. (Now I see he make his non-WP:AGF statement here before asking me for clarification on my Talk page!) But my answer shows I was not POV pushing (as if compliance with WP:RS could ever be POV pushing). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well no - I said that removing sources that promote a particular POV will be seen as POV-pushing, which it does. I appreciate your explanation on your talkpage, though, and given that I have edited my comment above to include "Restrict". Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If the motivation for the removals really was not to push a POV, the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs should have been removed first. The prima facie evidence shows a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. I suggest that if LegitimateAndEvenCompelling wants to show his 'good faith', he should immediately stop removing MMfA refs and start removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs; at least until he has removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as the number of MMfA refs he has removed. LK (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support See Black Kite above for a major plank of evidence. Clearly this guy does not have a clue as to the difference between a source "having a POV" and a source being basically reliable, and is blanket removing a good source of information which has a good history of quality, albeit a source which focuses on exposing problems in the right wing of the US. Weakopedia's comment (as of now) lacks substance and can therefore be discounted; same applies to Anthonychole's comment. Legitimate's own argument shown in the talk page section he references (permalink) is way off: for example, one of his arguments is that ". "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes", ignoring the fact that most sources do not always include authors, and sources like the The Economist (which I consider overrated) never do. He argues that since WP:POORSRC (who keeps randomly changing these shortcuts??) includes the words "promotional in nature" and MMfA seems promotional, it is automatically questionable. Wow. He also seems to somehow think that because MMfA irrefutably displays its evidence in actual clips of video, it is less reliable. Wow, just wow. Such a tortured, ludicrous argument needs to be stopped. We should work on cleaning up this mess and restoring these sources as well. II | (t - c) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - if LAEC subsequently agrees not to engage in such behaviour, he can have another chance. It is clear that his behaviour in removing MMfA citations has been disruptive; deleting citations to what is widely enough considered a reliable source can hardly be otherwise. But as he himself noted at RSN on 16 July, " I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources." [emphasis added] In this case, a non-disruptive approach would at minimum put the MMfA link on the talk page with an explanation, or replace it with the sources linked to by MMfA. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I do not see putting these citations on the talk page as an acceptable compromise, heh, and it is difficult to constantly watch over someone this extreme; also if he keeps repeating himself and calling it "discussion" while redoing the edit it is basically impossible to stop him. Perhaps a good start would be for him to self-revert his blanket removals. Replacing these with primary sources of the particular footage is also not the answer. II | (t - c) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions being discussed here are clearly disruptive, but an indefinite block is an overreaction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A permanent block is an overreaction; an indefinite block, liftable on LAEC agreeing not to continue such actions, is not. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the proposal does not contain any mention of such a condition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:BRD until now. I was aware of WP:3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And Anthony is right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issues at hand on the various pages. So yes, Rd232, I agree to abide by WP:BRD. And I like your Talk page idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive complaint about this editor is ignoring (which turned out to be ignorance of) WP:BRD. They now know about the policy, and undertake to follow it. Can this be closed now? Anthony (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. BRD may be at times be advisable, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for removing what is widely seen as a reliable source, without replacing it with a better one or at least moving it to the talk page. BRD is not the issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were only removing instances where it was not supporting the content, or not appropriate for some other reason. As for not replacing it with something appropriate, is it a policy violation to neglect that and just replace with "citation needed?" Anthony (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a longish block and possibly a topic ban/editing restriction of some kind. The editor has been engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of POV pushing and tendentious editing. There are no excuses and no justification for that. An indef block may be a little harsh but acceptabe under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Has that case (POV pushing and tendentious editing) been demonstrated somewhere? Or can you elaborate on that, with diff's maybe? (I don't want to defend a troublemaker who won't benefit from counseling - but that hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.) Anthony (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support or Topic Ban - It is possible to argue that MMfA is not a reliable source, but that also means that Fox News and WorldNetDaily sure as shit ain't reliable sources either and should be removed from the site using napalm and agent orange. All news is canned gossip, anyway, and is either sold for a profit or proselytized for an agenda. Until more appropriate sources are found, MMfA, Fox, and WND will have to do. There is a thing in American law called "fair use," which Media Matters follows, which means that their videos do not violate WP:LINKVIO. All the articles I've seen either present a video, or present transcripts with some context. LegAEC seems to be sorta repentant, if only because of 3rr and now the threat of a block (not so much because of acknowledging any mistakes, so I guess repentant isn't the right word but compliant). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not the appropriate ideological opponent you are seeking; it's the Media Research Center. Fox News is the conservative equivalent of MSNBC, not MMFA.

There is little difference between the left-wing PoV pushing from MMFA and the right-wing POV pushing from MRC, and in a previous discussion on the RS/N, I suggested that neither should be allowed, because the egregious partisan spin both sources place on anything that appears on either site.

As for WND, nobody should be using it as a citation for anything, anywhere on Wikipedia, unless they are citing it as an opinion from WND or one of its contributors. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. There needs to be a definitive consensus on the suitability of hyper-partisan "media watchdog" sources, including MMfA, FAIR, MRC, and AIM. I would support an RFC on the topic, but I don't think focusing on a single user is appropriate for this subject. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC is a good idea, but this isn't about whether MMfA is a suitable source - it's about whether a single editor should make that determination himself and single-handedly attempt to purge Wikipedia of that source, against the opposition of other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has tacitly agreed to stop removing links to MMfA. I would support blocking him again if he continues if there is an RFC initiated on the issue. Without an RFC, I don't see a consensus at all, so a block would be inappropriate because it becomes an issue of editorial content, unless there is an edit war. When another editor with a different view follows an editor reverting every edit, there is another issue (wikihounding) which is equally disruptive, and needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unless User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agrees to undo all of his removals. If he really believes that those citations are bad, someone else will surely remove them. Also, he should agree not to remove Media Matters citations in the future. If he comes across a bad citation, he should instead raise the issue on the talk page for someone else to deal with. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even the point of being an editor then? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MMfA is almost univerisaly used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view. Its use should be limited to an extension of existing secondary sourcing and not a as a primary source, especially if MMfA is trying to establich a fact. MRC should be treated as the same way. To punish LAEC for attempting to maintain a basic pillar of WP is absurd to say the least. One only has to ask, do you want WP to be a better more neutral place? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I first noticed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's systematic actions when he removed a citation in the Burning money article from this statement "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,[17] Larry Kudlow on The Call[18]". The removed reference [18] leads to a short article on Kudlow burning a dollar bill on The Call, with a video excerpt of the act. How is this 'used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view'? How is neutrality on Wikipedia improved by this removal? LK (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only reason MMfA or anyone else commented on that incident is because they are trying to make a political point against Kudlow breaking the law given his apparent attempt to run against a liberal politician in the near future. MMfA could care less about the actual act of someone burning a dollar bill, they are just trying to point out a conservative breaking the letter of the law which will undoubtably be used against Kudlow in the future as political fodder. Now, granted this is a rather benign incident, but the intent is clear from MMfA when you come to grip with reality and admit that they, just like MRC, are political animals. The question I ask myself, is, "Is this editor removing partisan sourcing from one ideology and inserting partisan sourcing from another ideology?" If the anser is Yes, then they are in violation of several WP policies. If they are simply removing partisan sourcing which appears to be in violation of NPOV then they are upholding the fundamental principles of WP. You have to admit, the people putting MMfA in as a source to begin with are very likely to partisan editors to start. LegitCompelling is simply trying to go around and clean up the crap. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps even more importantly, did the sourcing for the content removed rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE sourcing or was it just coatracking of MMfA opinion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. This particular incident didn't warrant removal. It isn't a coatraking of MMfA opinion. The only questionable aspect is that the sourcing is being used in conjunction with a fact (ie that their is no apparent consiquence), when the conjuntion is that this would be MMfA opinion. ehh, boarderline and technical. I did some searching and there isn't much else, so I would assume that burning a dollar bill on live tv probably won't ever get you in trouble. I did look at some of the others that LAEC removed and in general they are some longstanding wars regarding the blur between opinion and fact largely criticism of conservative figures which didn't recieve much press outside of the blogs. Those clearly should be removed, but it is usually a difficult endevour because of the political nature of WP, at the very least they should be expressly attributed as opinon of MMfA. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If you would indefinitely block LAEC, then you would need to indefinitely block other editors who regularly and consistently remove references from the Media Research Center. I lean toward excluding both sources, but there needs to be a consistent WP policy/guideline on this. In the case where this question was widely discussed on the RSN, using RfCs, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters, the consensus was consistency in application of both sources, and another RfC there leaned against use of MMfA entirely. Because of the results there, the lack of a policy/guideline on the use of such ideologically-charged sources, and because of the regular and consistent removal of MRC sources by other editors, I strongly oppose an indefinite block on LAEC. As someone else has noted, there is going to be continued warfare on this front unless a policy, guideline, or decisive RSN ruling has been made to treat these two sources consistently. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a good argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because there are other people doing unacceptable things, does not mean that we have to accept this one person doing unacceptable things. LK (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• So I take it that you would support indefinitely blocking--and will start ANI items seeking to indefinitely block--those who regularly remove references to the Media Research Center? Or does that not matter? Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From your lack of response, LK, it looks like you are only interested in indefinitely blocking those who remove ideological sources that you like. Drrll (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Treatment of MMfA as something more than a hyper-partisan source is a "sacred cow consensus" that no longer stands up to RS/N scrutiny. Just like its peers (Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters etc. etc.), WP:UNDUE should require third-party RS to support any content solely attributable to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - indef block for a first time offense? Seriously? He has been warned, he is responding to this discussion, he has been civil, and he seems willing to learn how his actions were inappropriate and adjust his behavior accordingly. He has a few blocks in his bast for edit warring, but most are in 2007 and he seems to have learned from those experiences. At most an appropriate length block (3 days to a week) IF he continued removing the MMfA stuff before a discussion at WP:RSN confirms it is non-reliable. Otherwise, blocks supposedly aren't punitive but preventative and thus far, the disruption appears to have stopped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. There's far too many one-sided ideologues who game the rules on Wikipedia. Strong action against them would hopefully curb this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could make an argument that such a statement and other actions by you Gamaliel would get you blocked by this rule. Ideologues exist on both sides, it's a part of the site, deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This sort of trolling is inaccurate, inappropriate, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you think any of my actions are inappropriate, take it to my talk page or to the relevant article discussion page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, you were the one railing against one-sided ideologues, not I. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An indefinite block is taking this too far. How about a ban from removing references from the Media Research Center, enforceable by blocks if necessary? The use of MMfA and MRC sources has already been decided on elsewhere. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Can you please supply the diff? Anthony (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose give him a WP:WHALE, but i have seen enough good work out him to think it would be a waste to indef. I may support a Topic Ban from Editing Citations and Artilces closesly linked with MMFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per diffs provided by Black Kite. Note that it would be indef, not permanent, and lifted after assurances by LaEC that he would cease disruption. -- ۩ Mask 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite didn't provide any diffs. Anthony (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't need to. The example I gave, and many other of LaeC's edits, show clearly the removal of one source whilst not removing those referring to WND, right-wing blogs, etc. Thus his claim of removing unreliable sources is clearly false. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your differences don't show much. If LAEC was using the linksearch function to find MMFA links (as I have done for Free Republic and Democratic Underground links), it shows that he was looking for links from that source, not links from other, even less reliable sources. When I go on one of my most populated->most populous tears (see my contribution history for examples) I don't look for other problems, and when people go through with AWB and fix specific issues, they will overlook things other than the specific issue on which they are working. It doesn't mean that they are shitty editors, and it doesn't mean that they have a partisan agenda, it means that they are focused on a single task. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? - I haven't reviewed the consensus on this, but assuming consensus is clear that MM references shouldn't be removed as such, and/or that LAEC is persistently overstepping the bounds, can't we just make that consensus clear for the record and ask LAEC to honor it? No need to get any broader than that, and it's only a blockworthy thing if they get that firm message and won't abide by it. I know that an indef. block could be overturned if they only make that promise, but wouldn't it be simpler and less disruptive on all sides to take the administrative sanction step out, and go immediately to the end result? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see that failure to remove other, more unreliable, references is a reasonable argument here. Either there's consensus or not to remove MMfA links, and either LAEC is being disruptive or not doing so. Nobody has an obligation to to anything around here, so I don't think it's fair or practical for anyone accused of POV disruption to show good faith by doing the same edits for the other side as well. It's not as if this is a single-purpose POV editor, they're just caught up in this particular issue at this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has any obligation to do anything here ... except not be disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC's actions are mostly correct in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AmnaFinotera. If he's here, discussing the appropriateness of the edits, and has ceased making such edits for the duration of this discussion, there's no ongoing disruption to be solved by such a block. Blocks are not punitive; they're to protect the encyclopedia from harm. When and if LAEC disregards an established consensus or becomes incivil in presenting his viewpoint, then we can appropriately talk about disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the last post by this user, it does not seem to indicate that he recognizes that there is an established consensus. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. .. Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular case is this edit to Burning money - the MMfA page in question used as source is here complete with a transcript and a video of Kudlow setting fire to a dollar bill. LaEK's claim that he was unaware of BRD is frankly ludicrous when you consider that this particular account was created in 2006. His block for legal threats also came on the heels of idht regarding WP:LEGAL. Unomi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's 4 years ago! Be reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to MMfA links and whether or not they constitute WP:LINKVIOs, having had a very lengthy discussion on the matter. We still disagree on the LINKVIO issue (and I still hold out hope he'll concede someday, LOL). But for those editors here who support an indefinite block, please take a look at that discussion and also how it got started. Use this link and look at the edit history for July 13th. LAEC removed an MMfA link from a page I watch; I reverted, requesting clarification on the Talk Page. He did not revert my revert; instead, he went to the Talk Page and proceeded to patiently lay out his position and perspective on the matter, a conversation that went on for quite some time that you can see here. The conversation was undeniably civil and respectful. Hence, after my own personal run-in with him on an MMfA dispute, I am skeptical of the claim that he systematically steamrolls over people's objections without taking the time to stop and discuss the issue in a civil fashion. If he did revert someone who reverted his edit, please take the time to carefully examine the incident and see if an edit summary or reason was provided by the offended editor rather than just assuming so. Also, reading some of the comments in this thread, it's apparent there are strong feelings in play for some folks here. I would ask that each of you consider what level of examination and scrutiny you would want your peers to apply before voting to block yourself in a similar situation. LAEC has thousands upon thousands of constructive edits, so please do him that courtesy before you make up your mind.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose the removal of such viciously hyperpartisan sources as MMfA. Yes, they do often (but not always) link to reliable sources. But no, they are not a WP:RS because of the high-velocity partisan spin, editing out of context, selective presentation of facts, and general propagandizing in which they constantly engage. We need to amend WP:RS to clarify Wikipedia's policy on hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and, at the other end of the rainbow, such right-wing trash as World Net Daily. Until that occurs, any suggestion that LAEC should be indef blocked raises my suspicions about any editor who would even suggest such an oppressive remedy, where there is no clear policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Relentless POV-pushing and IDHT over a long period of time. Xanthoxyl ^< 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC proposal

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Let me suggest what I have learned here and how I will respond, then people can comment and eventually agree that those actions will be acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to examine MMfA refs for compliance with all Wiki policy, most typically WP:RS. If I determine that the ref fails the test, I will take the following action:

1. Create a Talk page section entitled "MMfA refs".
2. On the Talk page, add the MMfA link(s) and associated text.
3. On the Talk page, briefly state why the ref(s) is(are) non-RS.
4. On the Main page, remove the MMfA ref(s), and typically leave the remaining text, though other policy may require removal, in which case I will briefly state why I removed the text in the Talk page. I have not done this much at all.
5. On the Main page, insert a Citation tag, but only if the MMfA ref removed is not duplicative of existing links or is not in the External Links section.
6. On the Main page, leave a history comment similar to the full disclosure I currently provide, including that an MMfA link is involved, but also adding See Talk:MMfA refs.

If I determine that the MMfA ref is Wiki compliant, as it is from time to time, I will take no action, except perhaps to improve the link, as I have done in at least one instance.

If I am reverted, I will take the following action:

1. If the history comment claims the MMfA ref is a RS, I will not revert but I go to the Talk page. I will take no action on the Main page until consensus is reached or if a week goes by and discussion on the Talk page has ceased without consensus. This raises a problem. What if all the folks here seeking to block me indefinitely create a consensus that a non-RS is a RS. What do I do then? RS Noticeboard, I guess. But what if the same thing happens there?
2. If the history comment is blank, I will revert, but only once, and thereafter return to Talk.
3. If the history comment contains ad hominem comments, I will revert, but only twice, and thereafter return to Talk.

I note that before this issue was raised and Badger did his mass reverts of all my edits, very few were reverted, and of those, even fewer stayed reverted. I say this to point out that I do not expect a lot of reverts, except if it is by the people here seeking the indef block. If those people revert me just because of what is going on here, that is a problem, and I am asking now how to address that, as that will clearly be for reasons having nothing to do with the RS issue.

The edits that Badger mass reverted, he should revert them all. Have any of you seen the personal attacks that guy made in the history comments? His actions went beyond the pale and he should revert himself--he has already trouted himself, but that's only of jovial consequence. Note well that I have not and likely will not take the route of using procedural means to intimidate him, such as this huge matter that has been filed against me to silence me for complying with WP:RS, though perhaps not complying with WP:BRD, although I was unaware of that until now and will now comply. No, I won't make official complaints against him, or against ChrisO for his move to block me 13 minutes after his comment on my Talk page saying I needed to stop something or someone might block me, or against Black Kite for his projection about POV editing (as if RS compliance is ever POV editting) made minutes before he too went to my Talk page to determine the veracity of what he just claimed was true. Given what has happened to me here and how I have responded in the positive manner I have and how many editors have supported me here and how the vast majority of my edits made over months were not reverted until Badger acted as he did, I ask that Badger be required to revert his mass edits of what I have done over the months, particularly since they were good edits never reverted for months until he came along and made his ad hominem attacks, and because the RS rule goes to the heart of Wikipedia.

Let me add this. In all this time, only one editor, and only once, has ever addressed the RS issue on a substantive basis. Everyone else every single time skipped over that and jumped to ad hominem argument or general statements that MMfA has been proven to be reliable. Then they move to block me indefinitely. Clearly they have no substantive argument or they would have made it. So here is the question. What happens if on the Talk page the discussion and resulting consensus never addresses the substantive RS issues? What happens if, like what has been happening 99 44/100% of the time so far, people choose to attack me or to make blanket statements about how MMfA is a RS on other pages? What is the means to prevent Wikipedia from being subverted in such a manner? What recourse do I have to get attention to that problem?

Okay, what do you all think of the above?

Thank you all very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the persistent efforts to use ad hominem efforts to sway opinion, such as the raising of 4 year old disciplinary matters, among other things, and in light of the persistent avoidance of substantive RS issues in the context RS rules require, I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your behaviour, and whether you're going to be indefinitely blocked. Do you mind if we focus on that now? The other important questions can be addressed on a new thread, here or at an appropriate forum. But, for now, can we just see how everybody feels about what you have proposed regarding your future conduct? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. This betrays a completely inappropriate battlegound mentality, as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. LAEC does not seem to fathom the possibility that someone may find his actions disruptive without being his political opposite -- and by his comment reveals the probability that his own actions have been ideologically motivated and not based on Wikipedian principles. Serious consideration has to be given to the question of whether this editor is capable of acting based strictly on grounds of policy, without guidance from his political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it was an after thought after all I've been through. Cut me some slack, even though you moved to block me indefinitely. I'll withdraw the question and strike it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's look at your proposal: it amounts to codified edit warring ("I will revert twice..."), and is therefore totally unaacceptable. What you need to do is wait until there is some consensus regarding whether the source is reliable or not, and then act. The lack of consensus is not license to do whatever you wish, the lack of consensus is merely an indication that the community has not yet made up its collective mind, and in that circumstance, one needs to act carefully and with due consideration for specific circumstances. Mass reversions when Wikipedia is still thinking about what to do is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am the one being mass reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those reversions returned the articles to the status quo ante. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the case of disruptive editing such as your. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. They were not "disruptive" if you judge by the reverts you get or don't get. They were not reverted until Badger Drink did so en masse as a result of this AN/I, and with the ad hominem history comments for which he trouted himself.

I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With the striking of the offensive section, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. It accomplishes the goal of ending disruption and allows LaEC to voice his concerns without detriment to the project (it may even improve sources where there's consensus Media Matters is not the appropriate citation). All in all a better outcome then either extreme. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. We have mitigated potential damage, so none is needed. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still seeking to make the determination on a global scale of whether MMfA is a reliable source or not. It should be obvious from the discussion on this issue that there is substantial disagreement on that point. I see nothing in your proposal about getting the consensus of editors beforehand about whether MMfA is a reliable source. What needs to happen is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary. Only then and only if the consensus is that MMfA is reliable should you attempt to carry out a systematic removal or replacement of MMfA citations. As it is, you're still pursuing the approach that got you into trouble - i.e. imposing your own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"[A] discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary" for each of the hundreds of edits I make would be a huge roadblock that would essentially end my efforts to apply WP:RS, and it would be overburdensome to everyone involved were I to decide to do that. As ChrisO is the person who waited 13 minutes to move to block me indefinitely after advising me not to edit in a certain way that I did not, is it not surprising he would suggest such an onerous requirement. Recall that I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. Focusing on MMfA is not what got me in trouble with Wiki policy nonadherence, rather that was failure to comply with WP:BRD, although admittedly it was the MMfA that got me in trouble from the viewpoint of editors such as ChrisO who oppose removing MMfA refs even when they violate WP:RS, etc. So I am not "imposing [my] own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand". My "view of MMfA" is irrelevant. The point is compliance with WIkipedia policy and that I have found an easy way to quickly identify hundreds of refs that may violate that policy. To the extent that I have removed the MMfA refs and not provided a means to mine the refs for RSs or to allow for consensus, I have proposed a means to correct that. That is what is being decided now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right ChrisO, there is substantial disagreement on under what circumstances MMfA is a reliable source. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to be guided by one particular contentious interpretation and not another. LAeC will follow WP:BRD, and preserve the MMfA ref's so others may use them to find RSs if they wish. That should deal with the disruption, from his side. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@LAEC - No not a RfC for every edit. There is so far no consensus that MMfA is NOT (that's NOT) a reliable source. Opinion is split. Until you have consensus that MMfA is NOT a reliable source, you may not systematically remove it from the encyclopaedia. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Either start at the RS noticeboard, or start a RfC to confirm that MMfA is not a reliable source. In the absence of that, you may only remove it where you can show that it is not a reliable source. This would involve demonstrating that it is the only source saying something, or that other sources contradict it, and cannot be done by mass removal, but must be done on a case by case basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Elen of the Roads is 100% correct. I will "only remove [an MMfA ref] where [I] can show that it is not a reliable source". Indeed, that is exactly what I have proposed doing. I have also proposed doing it "on a case by case basis." I will not do "mass removals".

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. Further, I do not think is it constructive to raise the issue. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or opposition. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref. My proposal does exactly that.

Someone made the suggestion that WP:RS needs to be updated to, basically, record what is being decided here so as to minimize the need to redo this kind of thing over and over, this being just the latest effort by so many people. I fully support that effort, should anyone actually carry it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been opened regarding this here. Unomi (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC Topic Ban Proposal

Given that LEAC still doesn't get that it is inappropriate to systematically remove something from the encyclopedia without community consensus, I think its better if he were to leave the issue of MMfA references to others, and to make productive contributions elsewhere, I suggest a topic ban whereby:
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is forbidden to remove any MMfA references from Wikipedia, or to systematically tag them as unreliable.

If he sees any violations of policy involving a MMfA link, he is free to raise the issue on the talk page of the article or any of the relevant noticeboards. If there really is a violation of policy, someone else will surely take care of it. LEAC needs to concentrate his energies elsewhere as he doesn't seem to understand that his actions are disruptive and not supported by the community. LK (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait for LEaC's response to Elen's very sensible post, above? Persuasion and education take a little longer than coercion, but create a nicer work environment. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. See above section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this outright. There is no consensus that MMFA is a reliable source, so there is no community consensus that his removals are a bad thing. An RFC can make a determination, which will settle this once and for all. However, I think that LAEC should wait at least a week, to see if an RFC is drafted. If so, he should not remove any MMFA links until the RFC concludes. Removing links while an RFC is in progress is unquestionably disruptive, but this attempt to hold him hostage over links of disputed appropriateness is not acceptable either. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. Please see Elen's post above, which gets it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. A lot of the difference in our positions may be attributed to differences in our interpretation of BLP; I favor a wide scope on that policy, which would result in more sources being disallowed when discussing living people. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BeyondMyKen and Elen. We need consensus on the question of appropriate use of MMfA and other such sites, and the polite thing for LAEC to do, who has been extended considerable patience here, would be to hold off on further MMfA edits until that is achieved. I have started a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard Anthony (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I have heard the contention that LaeC has been "systematically removing all references to MMfA" echoed around but so far have not seen it proven. It seems LaeC has been removing them on a case by case example and on at least one instance improved the citation and kept it there. Until it can actually be shown that his edits are blindly "systematic" and that a majority have indeed been disruptive I completely disagree with attempts here to block him.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed solution offered by LEAC himself seems best. And we need to amend WP:RS to discuss hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and WND. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring in user talk page

Resolved

 - Information was kept

Hello! I am currently in a edit war with Tournesol on his user talk page, in order to get personal information about myself removed. Even though I am asking him why I am not allowed to do so, he is continuing to revert it. Am I allowed to remove personal and background information about myself? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal information does not seem to violate any guidelines or policies. On top of that, it seems you added it yourself. In general removal/maintenance of talk page content is at the discretion of the user whose talk page it is. So altogether, that does not make a very strong case for you. I would not worry too much, hardly anyone ever reads talk pages, except for the owner, but (s)he read it already of course. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it leads to bullying, then I am seriously worried. I know I have to be very careful with providing personal information, unless there is a real reason as to why. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Looking at the history's, I'm not sure I see any personal information that you did not yourself speak off being revealed. I do, however, see that you are indef blocked at another Wiki[87][88] for pulling the same sort of stuff you attempted at the Bambifan101 SPI (i.e. trying to close it)[89] when you had absolutely no business doing so. And that you have already gotten final warnings here to stop badgering the folks who reported you for blocking there as well[90] I won't repeat the statements you have indicated you want removed, but I will say, it is NO excuse for violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And frankly, I'm finding your focus on SPIs as a newer editor a bit concerning particularly when we have had an editor not too long ago get community banned who made the exact same excuses for their inappropriate behaviors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually this close to blocking outright when I saw that Heymid had continued the problematic behavior he had previously been warned for. However, I decided to give him a final chance to continue contributing constructively. And yes, that would not include SPI work if I interpret your and Deskana's comments correctly. However, his non-answers do not really inspire confidence, and I feel we have a total failure to communicate (perhaps due to Heymid's age and the fact that he is not a native speaker of English), so any input on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. decltype (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think HeyMid should carefully read Wikipedia:Competence is required and consider wether he can live up to these standards. I am afraid his competence is more of an issue than deliberate vandalism, but that is no excuse. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this has not been a good day for me. I am not sure meta discussing is for me. And my behaviour has already been too bad I can't apologize for all the bad I have done to Wikipedia. I believe my block on SvWp is nonsense; my life at EnWp has changed since then, and I have always said I would really appreciate another chance there. I see EnWp as a better community than SvWp. Thanks for your understandings. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am asking for help, I will instead be facing the negatives and criticism against myself. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I promise I will immediately return to my constructive editing. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you post a complaint here, the entire situation will be looked at, including your own behavior. As it is, even after all of the above, you turned around and tried to deny requests at WP:RFPP[91] and randomly interjecting your clearly uninformed opinions in other pages and filing spurious requests. You seem to either NOT understand the warnings leveled at you, or don't intend to follow them. At this point, I'm thinking SvWp had the right idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I simply just focus all my energy on improving articles, there will be no problems or need for blocks. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy then? If that is true, then I should be allowed to remove personal information about myself, due to my young age. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay...despite his promises above, Heymid has again injected himself into SPI[92] (which he at least self-reverted), and making spurious requests at RFPP[93] (to have a page move protected as a "high visibility" that has not had any page move vandalism that I can see). As he seems completely incapable of keeping to his own advice, and is still also pestering the fellow from SvWp[94]. At this point, I'm thinking a block, at the minimum, is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things:

1. What does high visibility mean? Alexander Ovechkin was indefinitely sysop move-protected yesterday.
2. I did not understand the headline should be deactivated in the SPI archives. Sorry for that again. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to understand it because you have already been told repeatedly to stay out of SPI all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If it is that serious, then I will immediately leave the SPI and RfPP pages/sections. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad if someone removes my personal information at User_talk:Tournesol (especially the part saying Asperger's syndrome). /HeyMid (contributions) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your request has already been answered. Your refusal to accept what has already been told to you is now reminding me of this where I had to repeat myself about four times for you to get it. You really are pushing your luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure he understood exactly what I meant. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

He answered exactly what you asked. No, you do not have the right to remove information you posted on another person's Talk page. No one here seems inclined to remove it for you, either. I don't see anything else to be done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING states, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." Thus, while User:Tournesol has done nothing wrong by posting the info, s/he is, as far as I can see at least "supposed to" remove it. At best, it's uncivil for Torunesol to leave the information up after specifically asking that it be taken down. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

True, it would be courteous to remove it, but not required. If Tournesol chooses not to remove it, a warning is about the worst we could do, since it's not personally identifying in any way. An admin could remove it if they wanted, but I wouldn't recommend a non-Admin touch it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone / Aussieboy373

(edit conflict × 2) When I was RC patrolling, I came upon the edits of Aussieboy373. They're blanking and prodding pages claiming that the article subject wants them deleted. Due to the BLP stuff, I didn't revert, and instead decided to bring it to others' attention. I'm not too sure about what to do in these instances, hence my bringing it here for others to see. (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I created that page, and I want it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, MANDIC777 created it (see the page history here). You created a redirect. Even if you did create it, replacing the content with a prod is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page was created by MANDIC777 (talk · contribs) and significantly edited by someone not logged in using the IP address 24.46.211.161 (talk · contribs). Are both of those you? If so (and you can demonstrate it, for example by posting here from both the account and the IP address) then we can delete the article immiediately under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. If not then it will be deleted if noone objects to the PROD for a week.

Having looked at the sources, I don't think they really confer notability to Stone so deletion in one way or another is fine by me. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

X!, you seemed to be talking about multiple pages but I just see the one. Am I missing something, or...? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Even if you create an article, you still do not own it, so it is not up to you to delete it if others contribute. That is what you sing up to when startin to work in Wikipedia

All of them. This is a BLP issue, so this needs to be treaded on with careful steps. (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally not you but User:Mandic777 created the article in February 2010. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, this is me as: 1. aussieboy373 asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now as 2: (whatever my IP address is) I am asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, now as 3: mandic777 am deleting this page. I hope that this is proof enough that I did create the page, I am going to delete the contents of the page (again) and ask for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i would appreciate if my request for a speedy deletion would not be fought against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand a good number of other users have contributed to this article. On the other, though, I would question whether they qualify as significant contributors. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you say a good number of users, you mean me. That is my IP address that appears so frequently, and my two user names. The only other edits seem to be people monitoring pages to check if the sources are accurate and have proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using two user names? Did you forget the password for Aussieboy373?   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, his first comment here came from the Aussieboy ID. The editor seems to edit using both IDs and a fixed IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the subject of the article, Guy Stone, is said in the article to be born as "Guy Mandic". One of the editors IDs is MANDIC777. If there is a relationship between the subject and this editor, that would possibly mean they have a conflict of interest in regard to the article and should take alook at WP:COI. Also, if the editor involved is the subject of the article, he should probably contact OTRS if he has a complaint about the article. I'm not sure why there would be, since they contributed a great deal of the information in it -- but others have contributed as well, so it's possible that some misinformation crept in. If so, the answer is not to delete the article, but to correct it, using OTRS or the procedures suggested in WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one cannot revoke their contributions under the CC-BY-SA; this is made clear between the edit box and the edit summary everytime someone goes to edit a page. –MuZemike 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That being said, it would behoove MANDIC777/et al to quickly go over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and send an email to the OTRS team at the email provided there if there are problems with the article. –MuZemike 01:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I filed an SPI, even though it's a self confessed duck. Aussieboy tried blanking the article again, I reverted and warned, he switched to MANDIC777 and tried it again, leaving a message on my talk page saying he's the "sole" contributor. I was gonna leave him alone on the two accounts, but the warning dodging, the potential COI, and snubbing the contributions of others (assuming he knows what "sole" means, here) gets under my skin. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable. The guy who wrote it, and presumably is the subject of it, wants it deleted. What's the problem? Just do the right thing. Jesus. Anthony (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, we're not here for people to write stuff about themselves and then maintain control of the content and the fate of the article. He, apparently, wrote an article about himself, and it's been here for almost half a year, when all of a sudden he decides he doesn't want the article – but that's no longer his decision to make. The article is now ours, and the community decides what to do with it through policies. If you or anybody else thinks the subject is not notable, take it to AfD. If he thinks the article he wrote about himself isn't accurate, then he can to to OTRS and make a complaint. What he doesn't get to do is control the fate of the article on his own say-so. In the meantime, he's been playing fast and loose with multiple policies, and we need to decide if this person is someone that we wish to allow to have access for future editing, since they seem to have no real purpose in being here outside of self-promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew all that. Who will benefit from us keeping a non-notable, autobiographical puff piece? And who will be hurt by it? Exactly what are your motives here? Anthony (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How pleasant to have my motivations questioned. I suggest you AGF, and if you think the subject isn't notable (the article's not a puff piece at all, it's pretty much a standard actor bio) take to to AfD.

I think we're done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, motive. It's time someone enquired into that. What is your aim? What are you trying to do here? Did it occur to you to be kind? All I can see is you making someone live with a blp when they don't want to, when, apart from {{reflist}} and some tags and categories, they wrote the whole thing. Surely I'm wrong but it just looks gratuitously petty and cruel.

Now we're done. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gratuitous pettiness and cruelty are my middle names, they're what motivate everything I do here. I'm really surprised no one's picked up on it before now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about nominating for AfD and deciding based on notability? Despite your disagreement in the last couple of comments, this seems to be the point of convergence of what you both say. Antipastor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are your motives, Anthony? Hm? Why do you want the article deleted? Maybe you're a sock for Mandic777/Aussieboy373? Or maybe you're a communist spy? Hm? Or perhaps you're part one of the Illuminati, trying to hide the cover of one of your top agents?!? And I'll turn off my mind control lazers that are totally preventing you from taking the article to AfD, which is why you've been forced to question the motives of and badger others for not doing so. Although, you could have just put on a tin-foil hat to block the beam, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Colander firmly in place)Sorry Ken. That was a pretty superficial reading of one single thread. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I know how things can get, sometimes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block of MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373

Why not? He replaces the content of an article with prods and db tags after being told repeatedly not to, acts like he WP:OWNs the article, snubs the work of others, has a COI, and is spreading warnings out over multiple accounts (if it was a single account, it'd've been blocked by now). Then again, I've been drinking, so if I need to be trouted, please do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI, Aussieboy373 has been blocked for a couple of weeks, and MANDIC777 has been indef blocked. I believe the static IP has been autoblocked as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User Njsustain

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

Njsustain has recently engaged in a pattern of disruption across multiple New Jersey-related articles. The user has refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims, and instead repeatedly edit-wars with multiple editors.

Requesting an uninvolved administrator to take action with regard to this user.

---

New Brunswick, New Jersey

• 19:16, 19 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (no talk page discussion)
• 10:36, 21 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374566210 by Shimeru (no edit summary explaining this whatsoever)
• 11:05, 22 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (again, still no talk page discussion)

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

• 13:36, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain adds "POV" and "COI" tags to the article - at the same time fails to present any alternative reliable secondary sources.
• 14:49, 25 July 2010 - At User talk:Njsustain, blanks out request at his user talk page, Undid revision 375376621 by Cirt, still refusing to provide any reliable secondary sources.
• 14:54, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain prodded the page for deletion, again after requests on the talk page still repeatedly refusing and failing to present any reliable secondary sources to back up his claims about the article.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an article was a puff piece. Rather than engage in discussion, the article creator has been deleting standard WP procedures for addressing these concerns. Cirt has been both disruptive and using harrassing techniques to defend the article used to advertise the "Daryl restaurant and wine bar." He clearly has a personal interest in the restaurant is is using his position as an administrator abusively. Njsustain (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested Njsustain (talk · contribs) cease the disruption, and instead suggest reliable secondary sources to support his POV-pushing. Njsustain (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refused and failed to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly refuse to allow discussion as per standard WP procudures. You clearly have a personal interest in this restaurant and are abusing your privledges as an administrator and showing your bias through these bully tactics. You don't seem interested in other user or administrator comments about the article or about this incident, only in keeping YOUR article (or should I say advertisement) for the restaurant exactly the way you want it to be. Your comments are a big flashing sign saying that the article is nothing more than I biased puff piece. It consists of nothing but positively spun lore about the restaurant and a bunch of positive reviews. It is non-neutral, non-notable, and you just can't accept it, and are taking it out on the user that happened to point it out. You are trying to smear me in order to keep your advertisement for the restaurant. This is administrator abuse for personal gain. It is totally inappropriate.Njsustain (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assumptions. Njsustain (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making these spurious claims, which amount to violations of WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not assumptions, they are conclusions based on the article. You seem to believe that only your conclusions are correct. You don't seem interested in waiting for other opinions, only in pointing out "rules" that are in your favoer and inappropriately ignoring ones that are not. I may not have 40,000 edits or a jillion barnstars, but I can see a puff piece, administrator abuse, and someone looking for a fight when I see them. Njsustain (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you were inappropriately ignoring simple rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and so on. If you have a concern that an article is POV, why have you failed to produce reliable sources to verify claims that suggest that the article is POV? It's all very well if an article is presenting positive reviews, but if no negative reviews exist in reliable sources, are you still going to allege that it is POV? That sure sounds like your argument at the moment. What evidence do you have to demonstrate there is a conflict of interest? That's what is needed rather than the bickering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well don't make ANI another venue for the two of you to continue a dispute. Hold fire while a third party admin takes a look at things, that way neither of you talk yourselves into something else. Take heart the lessons of Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH, understood. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH. Njsustain (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here. Assuming Cirt has a conflict in interest with the subject of the article just because he wrote it doesn't really make sense; plenty of editors write articles about things that they don't have a stake in. The claims that Cirt is abusing his authority as an administrator are also fairly ludicrous; until I've seen a diff of Cirt threatening to block, or protecting "his" version of the article, or something similar, I suggest Njsustain drop that particular line of complaints. If Njsustain thinks the article is so bad, he's more than welcome to take it to WP:AFD, especially since the prod is very much contested (and Cirt is well within his right, even as the article author, to remove that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after several years on WP, I clearly don't understand the standards if it is (apparently) okay for administrators to go around calling other users "dicks." Fine, Cirt, you won. Have your advertisement, and keep hiding behind the white wall of silence. Have a nice day. Njsustain (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you keep acting like a dick, I'll keep saying you're acting like a dick. You've made unsubstantiated claims repeatedly, both about the article and Cirt himself (the former is a mere content dispute, but you're the one that started making the dispute personal by making allusions of COI, which you never provided evidence of). You thanked SGGH for his comments that a third party should look at things, and guess what, third parties (myself and Ncmvocalist) looked at things and don't think you're right, so now you're just going to "give up" the argument with a potshot at Cirt as a part of your concession? Lame. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. You and Cirt aren't interested in rational reasons for why I'm wrong, you're interested in smearing and name calling (i.e. swearing). If your arguments were logical, you wouldn't need to do those things. You would make them in due course, not use ad hominem attacks. Talk about lame.Njsustain (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And you've just suggested EVula and Cirt are not rational (which goes to mental stability); I think you are heading towards a block with this behavior. I've asked you a question and given a view on how you are appearing based on site policy, but your refusal to civilly respond to that is problematic - that you also choose to engage in bickering with those who are disagreeing with you is compounding the concern. Where are your reliable sources to verify what you are saying? Where is your evidence? If you don't have anything, why not simply say so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt should be warned as well for assuming bad faith.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: I got caught in the middle here merely because I observed what I thought was a pretty good, well-sourced article about a clearly notable restaurant, which was orphaned, and subsequently added a wikilink to another article to help out, which Njsustain reverted at least once or twice. I must say I am surprised that after so many claimed years of participation on Wikipedia, Njsustain seems evidently unaware of several policies and guidelines related to content as well as behavior. If Njsustain thinks the Daryl restaurant article is a "puff piece" or "advertisement" as he claims, then he should prove it. From where I sit as a disinterested party who knew nothing about the restaurant before I saw the article, it was blatantly obvious that it wasn't an advertisement, but an article about a restaurant that has well exceeded Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nsjustain's behavior regarding this article and its author have been, in my opinion, curiously lacking in good faith and knowledge of the standards around here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that you all are ganging up on Njsustain a bit unfairly here though perhaps s/he hasn't approached this correctly. If you ask me a majority of these articles should be deleted as advertisements -- category:Restaurants in the United States by state. The restaurant in question appears to currently be popular enough and has had good enough PR to have garnered a significant amount of promotional write ups in the lifestyle sections of various local media, and a insignificant mention or two in similar sections of the NYT. The article is exceedingly well written, and indeed was pretty much polished the minute it was added to Wikipedia. I have no idea what the truth of these COI allegations are, and I would suggest that making those allegations was inappropriate. On the other hand it is odd to see this kind of article pop up in such a polished state like that -- but maybe the writer is fan of restaurants or just a fan of this one? Who knows. I would suggest that if this article, and the other offenders in the category in question technically meet our notability criteria (does it?) its time to have a very detailed look at how to strengthen the policy in terms of commercial establishments like this. These types of establishments garner all kinds of local attention because that's how restaurant PR works. But should an encyclopedia further this PR, by using it to construct articles about these eateries? If we did this for every similar restaurant we'd double the size of Wikipedia overnight with more promotional material. This is a very bad path to go down.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more in principle, but the problem here is muddiness in the guidelines.

As an analogy, the consensus among members of WikiProject Wine is that Wikipedia's unclear criteria for inclusion result in the appearance of articles on arguably non-notable wineries that meet "the letter of the law" but not the spirit. See a real donnybrook argument about one such winery, as well as an even lengthier deletion review. To avoid such huge debates resulting from muddy guidelines, WikiProject Wine has a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which attempts to interpret existing guidelines in the context of wine, which is a huge topic of global interest. Isn't there something like that somewhere for restaurants?

For wine, we would advocate that the "coverage in multiple sources" criterion in WP:CORP that specifies "at least regional" be eliminated, leaving national and international coverage — at least for wineries. On the other hand, for restaurants, who don't ship products all over the world, I'd say regional coverage by multiple reliable sources is sufficient. (And schools are another matter, assumed to be automatically notable regardless of actual notability!)

The point I'm making with this analogy is that a single guideline doesn't fit all cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we admit that this article is bad news and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? Further discussions are taking place regarding this matter in several other venues:

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Just_curious
• Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant#An_additional_source
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability

The last one of these venues is clearly the most significant since it is the policy page in question. Comments there would be most helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A counterattack by Cirt. I wonder how much he gets paid for writing these advertisement articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice this is not the first recent instance when the communty has opined the same position... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination) June 2010. AFD ...Keith Dickson appears to be your basic moderately-successful member of the community: lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, elected to various minor local positions, failed candidate for the California state senate. None of this reaches the level of notability for a Wikipedia article.In the event that the article is kept, it will need a good deal of pruning: it currently reads like a promotional puff piece , there was strong community support for this rational and the article was deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following. I'm sure there are tons of puff pieces being written on the encyclopedia (unfortunately). What is the importance of this one?Griswaldo (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt adding Daryl's to the New Brunswick article was so blatant that Njsustain's edits seem appropriate. The disruption here seems to be the other way around.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not add it to that other article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • But you aren't denying that my edit to New Brunswick was appropriate, especially retrospectively in light of the current discussions on other pages. Jimbo Wales himself states that the Daryl article reads like an advertisement and should be deleted for non-notability (and also suggests it may have been created by you for COI reasons), and asked you why you removed the COI tag I placed on the article while a dispute was still on the table. Also, I was unaware that it was inappropriate to delete information on your own user talk page. I read the information before it was deleted, and while I know that I don't "own" my user talk page, was under the impression that it was not under the same restrictions as an article talk page and I was free to delete things. If this is incorrect, I think it behooves the administrators as leaders on WP to inform people of such before publically calling them "disruptive." I apologize if in my naivete of procedures that I made any faux pas, but in light of the recent discussions, I request that this discussion be closed, and I promise to be more gentile in the future, even if it means being less bold a contributor.Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins, part two

Resolved

 - blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but the issues over at Akins aren't getting better. I was originally the 3O on the page regarding a sourcing problem, but I guess I've become more active there. A few days ago I reported Wyvren (talk · contribs), an editor who was being particularly tendentious on this one article. He was blocked for 31 hours, but nearly as soon as he was unblocked, his editing started again. Actually, Dougweller brought this up to the blocking admin on the blocking admin's talk page, and I received a note asking me to chime in. I've tried to work with this editor on the talk page about sourcing, but they left a few small notes and have ignored the rest. He's making large edits that are largely rolling back any productive changes that have been made. I've left a note on the blocking admin's talk page about this, but their edits just don't seem to be stopping anytime soon, and I don't know what to do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this dispute, but I do know that Wyvren did this, which puts his ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in serious doubt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the POV of the current article on the Stormfront website is biased? Calling Stormfront a "hate site" is like calling the NAACP a "racist, black-supremacist, hate group". What is with the double-standard here? Using terms like "White-Rights Advocacy site" is much less biased than labeling Stormfront as a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist site. --Wyvren (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Wyvren, those two things are not alike. At all. Not even close. Not to anyone who has any contact with reality. You may think differently, but we go with what the reliable sources say, not your personal fantasies about the matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming back from a block and basically reinstating his edits is a bit of 'my way or the highway' and is putting off other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

G-d no! Even the name has Neo-Nazi connotations - and I find it impossible to believe that was an accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, alright. Wyvren is still editing with no regard for previous opinions; they readded some images that are apparently of a dubious nature, and they just made some pretty sweeping changes to the lede, now causing it to be bigger than the rest of the article. It's also skewing pretty hard POV, I think. Can we actually do anything about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Returning immediately to the same sorts of edits after a block is poor form. I have made no attempt to clean up any of these edits - if they require further discussion here, please unmark this as resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this; I've been a bit busy IRL. That's the same conduct I blocked Wyvren for, so I think a second block is the right course. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explicate the neo-Nazi implications of his user name? I'm not getting any help from Google. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request IP block of User:207.81.9.153 for repeated vandalism

The user (User:207.81.9.153) has been repeatedly vandalizing many pages, usually involving animated shows and comic book pages, many of which I have reverted several times over the past month. Vandalism usually consists of adding completely falsified information, such as creating characters, involvement in other franchises, appearances in other media, or just adding random celebrities to the casts of animated programs. The user was already contacted by an established editor and warned about his or her contributions and persists nonetheless. Here are some examples: [95], [96], [97], and [98]. The user history demonstrates that he or she has been doing this several times since beginning at Wikipedia. Requesting an indefinite block.Luminum (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, every edit by User:207.81.9.153 is vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears to be a static IP, and edits infrequently but in bursts of activity that cover dozens of articles during those periods, I've blocked the IP for 3 months. Shimeru 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite jstor

The template {{Cite jstor}} currently has cascading protection, but it seems to have an annoying bug in it. Notice the "edit" button following the citation, that directs to {{Cite doi/10.2307.2F2689754}}:

• JSTOR 2689754
  This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand

The above has the subst'ed template. Here it is, without subst'ing:

• .

As far as I can tell, the same problem appears on all other uses of the {{cite jstor}} template. My understanding of the code for that template is that the edit link should only be added when the citation is incomplete. Could someone with the tools to edit this template please investigate. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a feature, not a problem. When you first use "Cite jstor", a bot comes along behind you and create a subtemplate at "Cite doi" containing the full citation. Think of "Cite jstor" as a redirect to "Cite doi". Really, though, this system just begs to be vandalised. I don't like it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But, when the bot has finished the job, surely the edit link should go away? Personally, I don't think we should have a system that places permanent little ugly "edit" links on half the citations in an article. Anyway, regardless of whether this counts as a feature of the template, it's probably better just to have the bot paste the resulting reference directly into the article, rather than transcluding it as a template. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit is left there so that corrections can be made if the bot doesn't do it correctly (not that I've seen it do that). Whilst it might be vulnerable to vandalism, it saves an awful lot of time when referencing papers, leaving us with more time to write, instead of fiddling around with reference templates. Smartse (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoganate79

Resolved

 - All good - no admin action required. Users are permitted to blank their talk pages. TFOWR 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User Yoganate79 seems to blank his talk page over and over again. It also seems that the user has blanked or removed article talk page content in the pasts. --Kslotte (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although archiving is more customary, users are permitted to blank their talk pages, if they choose. Doing so is considered acknowledgement that they have read the messages. You appear to have forgotten to inform User:Yoganate79 of this discussion, so I'll take care of it for you. If there's a problem with that user's edits, messages from the talk page can be found in the talk page history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I found archiving a right pain to set up, and until I eventually settled on a solution that worked it was broken more often than not. Kslotte, it might be worth volunteering to help Yoganate79 set up archiving? It may be that they simply don't know about it or can't be bothered fighting with an evil bot... TFOWR 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But for the most part, we have nothing to see here. As pointed out here (and your talk page...which granted, was after you posted here), users are permitted to blank their talk page. Unless you can provide us some diffs of him inappropriately removing article talk content as you insinuate, I think we can mark this as resolved.. --Smashville^talk 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about the article talk removals can be found here. But, I assume restoring talk content (I can do it) is the way to go here. I have a concern that the user may have other places where talk content has been removed. --Kslotte (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I must not be in the right place, since i am not seeing anything about this editor's offensive comments in Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Bias, where the said editor insults a people as a whole, which cost the editor a block of one day ([99]), for "attempting to harass other users" (where i read "users" as "editors"). I think that the offense is greater, particularly considering that User:Yoganate79 refuses to remove his offensive comments, which are still there to displease the reader and his fellow editors, and adds to the insult another one. I see here a tentative slap on the hand, but with no results for the moment. In my mind, the said user must comply with the rules. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that psychic powers are not a part of the admin toolbox, right? Also, what exactly are you asking for? Based on the information you just provided, the user did something and was then blocked for it. What has he done since the unblock? --Smashville^talk 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that there are two ways to go about this : he got blocked, and we do the clean-up of his offensive comments ourselves, or, he is penalised (or cautioned to be) until he removes his own filth. If the former, should i perform the clean-up myself ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

213.107.191.108

Resolved

 - All accounts are blocked as necessary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 213.107.191.108 (talk · contribs) - most recent
• JHUGHES8989 (talk · contribs)
• Joshh101010 (talk · contribs)
• Joshhughes2010 (talk · contribs)

All edits are inserting misleading information about towns in southern Hertfordshire, England. Various warnings, all ignored. MRSC (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged, the newer accounts indef, the oldest for two weeks. The autoblock should catch the IP. For future reference, SPI is the place for these sorts of issues. TNXMan 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

topic site ban for User:Solar Rocker

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. This user started off as User:Ratinator but has retired that account. They also have a blocked sock account: User:CuteMice. Solar Rocker was technically created while Ratinator was still blocked, but as it seems an honest if inept attempt at a clean start I elected to let that go. All three accounts have been obsessed with acquiring rollback rights and have made one mess after another at WP:AFC that other users have had to spend time cleaning up. I'm frankly concerned that this user may lack the competence required for an editing environment like this, but at the very least I feel they should be topic banned from requesting rollback or participating at AFC for a period of six months. That should be enough time for an active user to gain the required familiarity with out content and vandalism policies, allowing them to participate in a productive manner, rather than just creating a lot of messes that need to be cleaned up.Now requesting a full site ban due to yet another fake retirement that was really just the Rat moving on to anew account, see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair about the rollback but can you not do the AfC. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree with a 6 month ban, but rather on a merit basis... what's the evidence for rollback "obsession"?.. moreover, why do you want rollback so much? It's only a button. Tommy! [message] 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The contributions of CuteMice are evidence enough. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban, but I'm not entirely comfortable with overlooking the socking issue, given his responses here. Frankly, the fact that he even asked this question is worrisome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ay, yes the 2nd diff is disturbing. Tommy! [message] 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Luckily he has no skill at deception, so the socks have been very easy to detect. The obsession with rollback and other user rights is clear if you look at the editing history of all three accounts, here are just a few of the many postings made by the three accounts on these subjects:Solar Rocker's reply to a denied request for rollback [100] CuteMices request, which is one lie after another [101] Actually Ratinator was more fixated on the reviewer right, which they are even more unqualified for [102] is one of his many postings to that noticeboard, so we should maybe throw that on the topic ban as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also support a "topic ban", as it were. We've received a fair few complaints from people submitting AfC requests that their requests were unfairly denied by Solar Rocker/Ratinator/Solar Rocks/CuteMice (or whatever other username he's used and I've left off), and a lot of these complaints were found to be justified and the close he made was overturned. Additionally, I think he should be restricted to a single account: him continually dumping old accounts for new ones is not acceptable. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Deskana. Tommy! [message] 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Reluctant to support site ban; the user is clearly not trying very hard to hide his footsteps, thus I think for now, at least, make it clear that s/he to use only 1 account, and then we'll go from there. I only say reluctant cuz he's not trying hard to hide his tracks; probably just a young user. Tommy! [message] 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had missed Solar Rock, blocked them too. Agree that he has abused WP:CLEANSTART in addition to the outright socking, and that he should be permanantly restricted to one account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, restrict user to one account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support absolutely (topic ban on AFC for 6 months and restricted to single account); I would also support a fresh block immediately, for an appropriate time, for socking.

I've had to deal with the fallout of far too many AFCs for this user and their socks - I'd guess at least 30 that I've had to repair damage from, and at least 10 users complaining in the IRC help channel about AFC edits that this user has made; I can get diffs if needed, but frankly I've wasted far too much time on this already. If you just look at their contribs to AFC's, it should be apparent that they do not understand that we want to help new users write Encyclopaedic content, not dismiss them to 'clear the queues'.

Solar rocker/ratinator/cutemice/solar rock/IP/whatever you want to be called, you do not seem to have grasped the basic principles of Wikipedia, and you are creating a lot of work; we have to be very careful to make new users as welcome as possible, and to guide them through the difficult process of getting started in Wikipedia; your declined/held AFCs do the exact opposite, and put people off contributing. People have tried to help and advise you where you were going wrong, but you deliberately evaded the block on Ratinator by creating Cute Mice, and even then you were shown great leniency with a short block; you then still persisted in gaming the system, creating new IDs. Wikipedia is not a game, you are not trying to 'level up'; you really do need to understand that. I do not know if you can become a useful contributor or not, but I certainly think you should stay away from AFC, and that you should start listening to all the many people who are trying their very best to get you on the right tracks. And please, stop trying to circumvent policies; it will catch up on you, surely you see that now. Best that can happen now is, you settle down, accept advice, read up on policies and guidelines, and learn to ask when you are not sure - check things, don't make assumptions. Maybe - shock - try writing an article. Stop trying to gain status; 'rollback', 'admin', etc are no big deal, it is not an award, it's just some little setting that allows trusted users to help in special ways. You are not going about it the right way; you're not gaining trust here. Right now, you can fix it; you can demonstrate maturity by accepting this advice - if you're blocked for a bit, use the time to read up on some policies or to start writing a bit of an article on your userpage (WP:FIRST might help). Try making some simpler edits - WP:CLEANUP has lots of stuff to do. Review those AFCs, see what happened to them, learn from your mistakes. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AFC for six months with a review then of general behavior, restricted to single account, and that seems generous. Block for sockpuppetry for an appropriate time with the understanding that further sockpuppetry gets an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And the latest account: Lunar Stars. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

you can do the topic ban then, I don't mind I deserve it Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you are doing the fake retirement/start a new account thing again. Clearly, you are incapable of understanding or abiding by our policies. I have blocked the new account and Solar Rocker indefinitely, and I would like to modify my request from a topic ban to a full site ban. Enough is enough, I shoveled all the good faith I could muster to this user, and they have spit in my face again and again in return. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This user was shown all the good faith in the world, and abused it each and every time. The door is that way, so long. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full site ban per Beeblebrox. Creating a new sock in the middle of a discussion about being restricted to a single account pretty blows any attempt to WP:AGF out of the water. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Sarek. I think this user is very young and that maturity is a serious issue here; however, I hope that, when he's more mature, he'll come back and convince us to trust him. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent ban evasion attempts

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) is permanently banned. He has returned to edit multiple times since then under various IP addresses.

Recently, Linuxmdb (talk · contribs) created the page MDB (Linux) (which was speedily deleted). For those who don't know, MDB is the "Merkey Debugger" as can be seen on LKML and other spots on the web. Other edits by Linuxmdb focused on Merkey's patents.

AmaTsisqa (talk · contribs) had a similar interest in Merkey's accomplishments. A sockpuppet investigation showed that the two accounts were editting from the same IP address 71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs), and the two accounts plus the IP were blocked.

Linuxmdb identified himself as one "Gaylynn Mitchell" [103].

AmaTsisqa claimed to be "Frau Geartner," a 64-year-old German woman [104], though the sockpuppet investigation (which included a checkuser) suggests otherwise.

Other IP sockpuppets have appeared since then. These can be identified either by the IP angrily claiming to be "Gaylynn Mitchell" or the WP:DUCK test based on the subjects the IP chooses to edit.

• 71.219.49.171 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.116.225 (talk · contribs)
• 71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.117.104 (talk · contribs)

71.213.117.104 has been persistent in attempting to get unblocked, trotting out the same old "I'm not Jeff, call my cell phone and I'll prove it." As another IP noted on the talk page, there is no listing for "Gaylynn Mitchell" anywhere in the state of Utah.

Multiple promises to obey all WP rules and policies ring hollow. As a banned user, WP:BAN still applies, and he's not obeying that one already by IPsocking.

There is also the connection between "Gaylynn Mitchell" and Jeff Merkey. If we don't accept all of the edits by "Gaylynn Mitchell" which promoted Merkey's accomplishments as evidence of sockpuppetry under WP:DUCK, then it shows that "Gaylynn Mitchell" cannot be objective and abide by WP:COI and should therefore remain blocked, especially in light of "As soon as the block expires I am going to write about JEFF MERKEY".

Given that this persistent ban evasion will not stop, a high-level contact to the network operator is in order. WP policies specifically hold this out as a possible remedy to long-term abuse. Long Time Lurker (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey is, indeed, a long-time problem. However, he's only half of a problem that includes individuals following him here to further an offsite grudge. The above account ought to be carefully scrutinized in that regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Gavia. Stop your kvetching or else that recommendation you just gave will be the noose you hang yourself with. I think at this point it's fair to say Merkey's detractors are also de facto banned for their continued on-wiki harassment of the guy. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to examine the IPs listed above by the SPA on their face value? Or do we just ignore the SPA without acting on the possible JVM socks? (I am asking because I genuinely do not know). Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he would abide by WP:BAN, then he wouldn't be here for anyone to "follow him here." He is banned, and we're trying to point out evasion attempts so he can be stopped. If Willy On Wheels (talk · contribs) comes back with another sock puppet, will you ban the users who point it out?

What does it say on WP:BAN? Banned users are not welcome. How can you harass someone who is not welcome, persona non grata? If you break into my house, will you call the 911 and report an "assault with a deadly weapon" when I pick up my baseball bat to chase you out? Long Time Lurker (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, banned users are not welcome. Neither is feeding the trolls, which is what Merkey detractors have been doing on the blocked ip talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we all make a deal? When obvious sock puppets of Jeff Merkey are reported at ANI, the admins take it seriously and act according to the rules of wikipedia. In return, you'll get rid of most of the text from people who report this ban evasion. Deal? Observant1234 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also don't threaten to block the reporting edittor. I've seen how admins have treated other edittors who reported these obvious sock puppets. Thats just wrong. Block the socks when they are reported and the disruption will be substantially reduced.

And by the way, 71.219.49.171 (talk · contribs) is another IP sock. Look at the edit to User:Linuxmdb in that IP's edit history. Long Time Lurker (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

This users continued incivility is getting beyond the joke. He has since the last ANI here said the following.

• [105] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [106] Infers i require remedial education.
• [107] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

These are clear breach`s of wp:npa and WP:TPNO

He is also in the habit of misrepresenting my comments [108] another clear breach of WP:TPNO which says, Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context

I would like this user to be reminded that such incivility has no place on WP mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley is attempting to impose a fringe view on a subject about which he knows little. His objection is fundamentally to having his own words, which include the claims that Greeks had no democracys [his spelling, since repeated, he also uses democracy's] and that the United States had no elections before 1789 quoted back at him. My "misrepresentation" has consisted of so quoting him.

He also has a tendency to remove sourced edits, because he (with no source) disagrees with them; this habit of WP:BLANKING really should be addressed:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. He then put it up for deletion, and continued to revert.

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

His remedy is simple. If he strikes the nonsense he puts forth, I will cease to quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to hat hab the off topic stuff above? This is not about content, this is about a users constant uncivil behaviour mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If repeated WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behavior regarding content eventually led an editor to to responses that are not exactly WP:CIVIL, the content discussion would seem to be related. Active Banana (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, those PA`s were made well after the diff`s provided above. mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• A few words in defense. Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. So were many of the best professors I had in college and grad school. I've observed his work for a year or two now, because our areas of interest often overlap. We've had arguments. I don't always agree with him. Eventually, however, I always see the intellectual basis for what he's saying, and sometimes I'm willing to concede that he was right and I was wrong. His arguments have had a positive, bracing, and clarifying effect any time I've encountered him, especially against those attempting ownership of an article. I've never seen him push a POV or argue for any apparent reason other than a truly impressive devotion to disinterested scholarship. Is he sarcastic? Is he unnecessarily harsh or contemptuous? Yes. He's also sometimes uproariously funny, and an editor of great intellectual breadth and depth, as indicated by the number of topics to which he can make informed contributions. Nor does he go around deleting content out of sheer zealotry; the fact that he spends so much time on talk pages indicates that he's engaging in dialogue. To me, this is crucial; I'm more worried about editors whose main goal seems to be blocking the contributions of others while adding little content themselves. Lighten up! People who place a premium on intellectual activity aren't always endowed with equal patience for the social hypocrisies aka good manners. But WP:CIV is not a club with which to beat the most spirited among us into submission. I would hate to see WP turn into a place where the Dolores Umbridges of the world can flourish and the Temperance Brennans are hounded out. I find it horrifying that people want to form a tribunal to judge editors not on the basis of the overall value of their contributions to WP articles, but on whether they adopt a meek and deferential tone on talk pages. That turns WP into some kind of gentlemen's club administered by a Star Chamber. I fail to see how the quality of the encyclopedia can be improved by this. What the community is going to do with PMA is a chilling phrase (from the Wikiquette alert that preceded this action), because it won't be the community doing anything. Most of the community will be going about their business unaware this is even taking place; it will be a few people ganging up on one independent-minded editor whose prickly manner is not calculated to win friends and allies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, i know what you are saying, but it does not matter. Just because he makes decent contributions doe not give him leave to call people vandal`s, liars, ignorant, or any of the other insults he chucks at people. This is a behavioural issue and it needs to be sorted mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I'm happy Pmanderson made you realize you needed to know the subject better. However, he has lately neither made anyone feel like that, nor has he been blunt. He has been incorrect and persistently insulting. His main arguments are now personal attacks and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Cynwolfe's comment. I've had a look at the article in question, which brought a dispute to AN/I earlier, and aside from wondering why we have such an article, thought it takes quite a lot of intellectual and scholarly effort to improve the article. PMAnderson is blunt, but the few times I've been the subject of his bluntness I didn't feel insulted, but rather that I needed to read more and work to understand the topic better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe he didn't actually insult you, but maybe he just was blunt? However, he has the last months not been blunt, he has been insulting. There is a difference. Take a look at his insults now, and tell me if he just is "being blunt". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• “prickly manner” is zero excuse for habitually engaging in incivility and personal attacks, Cynwolfe. I doesn’t matter if PMA has an I.Q. of 165 and herald angels guide his fingers on his keyboard; behavior like PMA’s is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Moreover, his behavior is chronic; it’s clear he fancies Wikipedia to be a big game to play and has zero intentions of conforming to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

• Comment Things are entirely out of hand with Pmanderson. He has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. Something really needs to be done about it. Note that there was an ANI against him here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley. All of it was over just this sort of thing. Neither resulted in action against him. Now Pmanderson is engaging in outrageous personal attacks on yet another editor again. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'yet another' editor? This is the same Mark Nutley from 8 days ago, bring this back. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Doug no, these are further new PA`s from Pmanderson, i`m not bringing it back at all. Greg has made an error above though in think i was another editor mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh! Indeed. I corrected my mistake. I saw someone else’s signature and thought we were dealing with a different editor who is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; I see it’s the same one. A thousand pardons. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting Cynwolfe: Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. Agreed. He is “irascible” (definition: “become angry”); “blunt” (being straight to the point); “hardheaded” (stubborn). And none of that excuses “uncivil and engages in personal attacks”, such as calling someone a “semi-literate ignoramus.” It doesn’t matter what the edit dispute is about, editors one week after another are the recipients of abuse by PMA—and those are just the ones who know enough about Wikipedia to come here to complain. PMA is toxic to this project, which is a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see any of Pmanderson's edits as warranting action at this noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And just who are you? Might you please illuminate us here as to your relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic of yours? And what is your knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies on WP:NPA? And why don’t you redact your 2¢ from my comment area and make your own so there is more room for other editors to be dumbfounded by your post. I do gather that you must not be an editor PMA considers to be a '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; do I have that much right?? Greg L (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, the irony. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lacking Dougweller's confidence that the irony is self-evident, I'd like to point out as politely as possible that a comment opening And just who are you? would not serve as my model for civil exchange. This is why I dislike charges of incivility: how do you determine the threshold? You can't. It's too subjective. It isn't at all like edit warring, or lack of verifiability, or any of that. It's whether my feelings got hurt. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are wholly entitled to your opinion. And you were the one defending PMA for being “blunt”??? Most curious. Curious indeed. Perhaps, when you are done with what strikes me as posturing, we can get back to PMA. Or, if you embrace the philosophy that “the best defense is a strong offense” as much as I think you do, you are always at liberty to file an ANI over my “And just who are you?” You are certainly free to gloss over calling other editors “semi-literate ignoramus” who “require remedial education” and focus instead on my “And just who are you?” As I also wrote, I asked TFD to “illuminate us here as to [his] relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic” of his; that is not too much to ask. I note that he or she had yet to respond. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Quoting you: how do you determine the threshold [for incivility]? Why, by looking at the abuse and personal attacks heaped by PMA, and employing WP:COMMONSENSE. I don’t know about you, but I find “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education” to be—you know—over the edge. Maybe I’m just too darn sensitive. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Those few who want to know much more about GregL's habits of civility and contributions to a harmonious working environment (and a little bit more about mine) should see the evidence for the date-delinking case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can certainly see that you embrace the philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense.” You are perfectly free to see if I am in the habit of calling other editors '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”. Me thinks it a futile effort. This ANI is about you. If you want to start an ANI on me for chronic incivility, please, be my guest. Hopefully that will lighten up on the clutter here where you and your friends launch an attack on those who have the hubris to believe you actions have been profoundly uncivil. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Greg L's chronic incivility has already been an Arbcom case (see the link). Would ANI do more?
  • But perhaps ANI will act; the pattern of demanding civility sanctions to win a content dispute is not unknown here. Not that I really need to underline the incivility of an editor who has already descended to boldface -er- ramblings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may try to bait me by saying my posts are “ramblings,” but it won’t work; I am simply quoting what you wrote. Now, are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you will change your conduct from hereon(?), or are you going to act like you don’t need to change? Greg L (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• To answer the question, TFD is an editor who has a different view than me of Mass killings under Communist regimes, and is therefore spending a lot of time trying to discuss my edits instead of doing constructive things, like answering concrete questions about what kind of changes he wants to do. He supports Pmanderson in this, because he opposes me, nothing else. It's pure personal vendetta. See for example the RFC, where he absurdly claims that his WQA against me shows that I say things that "far exceed anything that Pmanderson has written", a statement that is patently absurd. This type of nonsense can't be allowed to continue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how pointless it is to try to impose false civility. Greg L, you accused me above of misdirecting the tribunal's attention with my "posturing." That's an insult. How I respond to it, however, is my problem and should not impinge on your right to say what you mean. Again, "incivility" is subjective. I'm not trying to excuse PMA's verbal behavior on talk pages, because frankly, I consider it often self-defeating. But he's a gadfly. Arguing against him always sharpens my thinking, which in turn improves the clarity of the article at hand. Attempts to squelch him just because he has a harsh wit are contrary to my notions of free speech and don't benefit the creation of better content. The use of WP:CIV as a weapon is a bad trend, and that's why I spent time here on the subject. I've said what I have to say about the specifics of PMA's case. These kinds of accusations against otherwise productive editors almost always take on the character of a witch hunt. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is correct (which he is not), well read (which he is), intelligent (which he may be) is all irrelevant. It still does not excuse his personal attack, and Cynwolfe, I'm pretty sure you understand that if you just think about it a bit. It's also irrelevant if he is blunt. I'm blunt. I've never called anyone an ignoramus anyway. That's not being blunt, it's a personal attack.

We are never gonna get anywhere with loads of people making ridiculous excuses just because the agree with him on his POV. I've started an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson. Pmanderson: Since you don't want me to notify you on your talk page, I notify you this way. You are hereby notified. If someone else feels like notifying him on his talk page, feel free. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be time here to look again at the three diffs proffered by Marknutley above, and judge whether his characterisations of them are fully justified:

• [109] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [110] Infers i require remedial education.
• [111] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

Is it possible that what Pmanderson actually posts is neither entirely inaccurate nor completely uncalled-for in the original context? The rest is sound and fury.--Wetman (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know mark nutley, and haven't had much dealings with him. But I know that Pmandersons insults against me are 100% wrong and completely uncalled for. In fact, he called me a vandal before we had even had a single interaction. So it's highly unlikely that he is correct here. And insults are *always* uncalled for. So the answer to your questions is: No.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the other dedicated blanker on the same page. Yes, I consider blanking of sourced material to be vandalism; so do many people; there's even an essay about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal attacks are uncalled for, your descriptions of the events are untrue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that OpenFuture would consider Pmanderson's comments offensive, when he has made the following comments along with countless others.[112]

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010

Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010

Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010

You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010

His explanation was, "I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse...." 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)" How, OpenFuture, is this any different from Pmanderson's comments? TFD (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If i may interject here, this is about Pmanderson`s conduct. If you feel another editor is being abusive start another thread about it. I am fed up of being insulted and would like something done mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in response to OpenFuture's comments, and would like to know why he finds that these comments are offensive. TFD (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD's list above again suggests that lack of civility is a subjective impression. I've seen the kindest, most humane WP editor I know get a bit snippy. Why is everyone so afraid of tough language? I've yet to see evidence that even PMA's most dyspeptic remarks have damaged the quality of an article. What is the goal here? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite understand Cynwolf's spirited defence of the subject of this ANI thread, and am delighted for him over the mental stimulus he says he has enjoyed. However, it seems that quite a few people here do not feel that way. Much as the subject is made out to be some sort of Professor Kingsfield, I would submit that he is not. Nobody voluntarily walked into his classroom, except perhaps Cynwolf, and certainly nobody agreed to submit to being abused by same in the manner described. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is some subjectiveness to it. But to use the bluntness that you appreciate, Cynwolfe: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I asserted that editors should be able to engage in vigorous debate and speak freely. This is not a privilege I would extend to some and not to others; I consider it fundamental and necessary to the production of good-quality content. You can say whatever you want to me. I would point out, however, that to say I am "not honest" is to call me a liar. So if it isn't OK for PMA to allege or imply that you knowingly spoke falsehoods, why is it OK for you to say that to me? That, I repeat, is why charges of WP:CIV are too subjective to be used to block an editor, and why I have trouble seeing this as an effort to cultivate a more civil and productive environment in which to discuss content and related issues. The civ guidelines are too susceptible to tactical use in squelching genuine debate. Unless my character and intentions are impugned again, I don't really have anything further to add: I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not imply that you are a liar in any way, shape or form. I did say the following: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. That would imply that you are a liar, if you claim that my comments (from TFD's WQA above) are worse than Pmandersons attacks. You have so far not done that. You have just implied (and you did so again now) that I somehow engage in the same type of personal attacks as Pmanderson. I do not think you would claim that if you actually read the comments I made, and also read the links in the RFC. It is completely obvious to everyone, and I'm convinced it will be so also to you, Cynwolfe, that Pmandersons attacks and my comments above are not comparable at all.

I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. - So you are saying that Pmandersons persistent personal attacks is wrong then? Can you say that out loud? Or are you trying to imply that its' OK for Pmanderson to attack us, but NOT OK for us to bring that up? Isn't that then exactly the kind of privilege you said you would not extend to him? And are in fact his "bluntness" not exactly such a privilege? Others are not allowed to be "blunt", only Pmanderson is, apparently. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I believe every editor should be able to engage in vigorous debate and to speak freely. OpenFuture, you or any editor may be as blunt with me as you like. And I'll answer your question honestly: I think PMA is verbally agile enough not to use deprecating nouns in the vocative or in the predicate of a second-person sentence. No name-calling! The "semi-illiterate ignoramus" is bad form even if in context it is an honest and even reasonable response to what was said, and even if it was framed conditionally, as you carefully made your implication that my word is unreliable dependent on a sentence constructed in the conditional. I think PMA should rein in his rhetoric. It does not follow that we should rip off his epaulets and burn him at the stake. This entire discussion shows the dangers of WP:CIV as a weapon to squelch opposing voices. Every time someone points out that you and mark nutley have also made remarks that could be considered uncivil, the answer is simply "but this is about PMA." No, it isn't. It's about whether we're serious about cultivating a productive environment for the free exchange of ideas about articles, or (forgive the shorthand pop ref) whether Dolores Umbridge will be the head mistress. This pouncing on words and comments out of context to expose Wiki-speech crimes is detestable. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would a retraction of the "semi-literate ignoramus" comments and a statement by User:Pmanderson to avoid such statements in the future be enough to cut all the Wikidrahmaz here and start with a blank slate? Active Banana (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it yes, along with the accusations of sockpuppetry, being a liar, and a vandal. excluding the edit summarys of course as they can`t be changed. mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the third ANI in three weeks. PMA’s incivility is now quite well documented and is not in the least bit insignificant. Would you please, Active Banana, explain why you don’t think PMA is in need of an attitude transplant via a 30-day binary-induced wiki-coma? Just why is it that you seem content to label these violations as “Wikidrahmaz” (translation: drama queen: get over it), and simply have PMA revise a post so it reads…

You are a semi-literate ignoramus [exhale carbon dioxide, which is good for plants] and I… (more barely-passable bitch-slapping)

…and then you would like us to all (once again) walk away and pretend that PMA isn’t going to go back and dish out more of this to more editors. The guy is beginning to seem like greased Teflon and I would really like to know how he pulls this off so many times in a row. BTW, please spare me how you really meant he would delete the whole comment; that amounts to the same thing: outrageously flout our rules over and over and get away with it… again.

Incivility seems now to be something that gives PMA “this-is-a-big-game rush” and there are clear rules against it. Yet here we are. Again. The only way I think that PMA should possibly be allowed to get out of here without a good long block is to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks he has been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that he will change his conduct from hereon and abide by all requirements of WP:NPA, which are exceedingly clear about the sort of stuff he has been pulling.

So do you, or do you not, support requiring that PMA make the two-part pledge I outlined here? Greg L (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Pmanderson block log, you see a pattern: 1. He violates Wikipedia policy. 2. He gets blocked. 3. He apologizes, promises to never do it again and gets unblocked. 4. Repeat at 1.

I do not see any promises from Pmanderson as useful. He also, at List of wars between democracies have agreed to only use sources that explicitly call conflicts wars between democracies, but he continues to use sources that do not anyway. Although his excuses and promises surely are well meant at the time, it's clear that they are not enough in itself. I would accept an apology and a promise, but *only* if it also comes with the condition that any further incivility from him will cause an immediate extended block. Pmanderson is not going to stop being incivil, nor is he going to stop revert-warring by his own volition. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin action

It would be nice if a responsible admin (or more) would act on this one. The foul is clearly and sufficiently flagrant, the evidence is well documented above, as is the persistent pattern of behavior the community is seeing from Pmanderson (here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley.) Pmanderson’s block log suggests that one or two-day-long blocks aren’t proving effective. His propensity to attack those who tire of his behavior and try to avail themselves of a remedy here and at Wikiquettes demonstrates that he prefers to embrace a philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense” rather than simply modify his behavior and try to conform to conduct-expected. His style is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg L., since you yourself have been blocked 6 times, including for "harassing blocking admin",[113] I question your opinion. mark nutley has a viewpoint that most readers would view as "crank" or "crackpot". He continually brings up fringe writings which he believes should be given the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed articles. He does not accept WP polices of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Certainly the types of people that WP needs to contribute are irritated by this type of editor. What geographer for example would like to spend his time arguing with someone who thought the Grand Canyon was only six thousand years old? When readers come here they do not want to know that some people think Barack Obama is not an American, that the New World Order controls the world, that floridated water is a Commie (phil nutley's lingo) plot, etc. mark nutley has shown a blatant disregard for WP policy and has wasted the time of many editors arguing for the inclusion of fringe views. TFD (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff were i have tried to promote a fringe source over a peer reviewed one? Or were i have argued for the inclusion of fringe views? Do it on my talk page, this is off topic enough already mark nutley (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read through this and don't think i know any of the principals or had any contact with them or the articles in question (it appears to be about the peace theory of democracy; some editors appear to be removing information from the website that would appear to indicate this grand theory is, uhm, overegged by its supporters). Having done so, I demand that an administrator immediately award Pmanderson the senior editor's badge (with oak leaf clusters, even) and have one of the bureacrats arrange a reception for the ceremony in a suitably grand hall. If something could be done about the constant wikipedia problem of capable, edumacated folks having to deal with overzealous editors with idiosyncratic points of view, that would be nice too (but i won't hold my breath).Bali ultimate (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what happened at all. You'd do well in reading the RFC in question. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry - I get along reasonably well with Mark, considering out differences of opinion - but there is nothing in PMAnderson's comments that was not warranted. WP:SPADE applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, it`s nice to know you think i`m a semi-literate ignoramus who requires remedial education, and is a liar a vandal and ignorant. Cheers mark nutley (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No one said you are. PMA said you may be, and a nice one at that! Also when he provided remedial education he never said that you required one. After reading on remedial education, I can conclude that 99 per cent of WP editors require one. I, as Dougweller above, also see some irony in the fact that anonymous teenagers have the ability to chastise old professors in Wikipedia (I am not implying that you are a teenager, just that it happened before). (Igny (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

That is first of all a ridiculous excuse. You would not accept it if I said "It may be that Igny is a moron" every time I commented something you said. The "may" is not an excuse for personal attacks. Secondly you are wrong. PMA's personal attacks are usually not preceded by any "may". Maybe look at the RFC and see the diffs before you say anything? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would not accept that, and yet you said that. I suggest you strike it out and apologize. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I would not accept that - But you claim that mark nutley should accept it from Pmanderson. Why is that? Should Pmanderson be judged by a different standard than me? How come I must follow I higher standard than him?

and yet you said that. - No I didn't. It was purely hypothetical, as you well know. I don't think you are a moron, I never said that you are, so there is nothing to apologize for. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I still haven’t yet received a response from Pmanderson. Are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you promise to change your conduct from hereon and never resort to personal attacks on other editors? Please answer this question; that is not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been enough facts collected — Time to act

• (*sigh*) Once again, PMA and his followers have managed to momentarily divert the direction from one of PMA’s outrageous incivility and personal attacks upon another editor (calling them things like “semi-literate” and “ignoramus”) and have gotten Mark Nutley, above, defending his edits during his edit wars with PMA. The rules on Wikipedia are clear: Editors are supposed to discuss their disagreements on talk pages and try to draw other editors into the discussion so a consensus can be developed. Then, the consensus view goes to print. During that discussion process, one editor is to not batter another editor into submission and intimidate them and drive them away by belittling them with public (or private) personal attacks such as declaring openly that the individual who has the hubris to disagree with PMA is “semi-literate” and an “ignoramus”. Now…

  Questions for those here:

1. Who here thinks PMA’s conduct towards Mark Nutley is in conformance with our requirements of WP:NPA?
2. Since truth is allowed to be spoken here, let’s ascertain a basic fact. Mr. Nutley, are you, in fact, semi-literate?
3. Are you, Mark, an “ignoramus”? I know you take umbrage to these labels; but is the allegation true?
4. TFD did a magnificent job (Bravo; PMA has clever followers) drawing an analogy to an editor alleging that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old and this diverted Mark Nutley from the task here of deciding what is the proper path for the community to rein in this chronic behavior of PMA. So who here thinks that whether or not TFD and Pmanderson agree with Mark Nutley’s edits—even if they think Mark Nutley’s edits to be galactic-grade el toro poo‑poo—that this is somehow an excuse for PMA to engage in personal attacks like he did in an obvious effort to publicly flame and intimidate Mark to the point that he goes away? If someone thinks the nature of Mark’s edits excuses the personal attacks, please cite specific language from a specific policy (with links).

Please answer below. Thank you.

I request that a responsible admin step in here and do the right thing. PMA’s behavior is now well documented. He has been advised three times above that if he simply apologize to the editors and pledge to never do it again, we can be done with this. He has posted since then, but ignored the offer. He is not apologetic. He continues to engage in flagrant personal attacks on editors who have the hubris to disagree with him. If those editors continue to disagree with him, the PMA’s standard practice is to simply publicly ridicule them and question their I.Q. and education with names commonly heard during 5th-grade recess. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer area for the above four questions

I recommend that Pmanderson continue to ignore you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That would be unfortunate for PMA if he heeded your counsel because a simple apology and a pledge to the administrators here to not engage in personal attacks again might avoid less desirable remedies the admins are at liberty to dish out. This conduct of PMA’s seems to be chronic and he shows no willingness to conform to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to take any action here. You haven't figured this out yet? Drop the stick. You already have an RFC going. This thread aint going nowhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I defend your right to have it. Methinks, however, your highly confident prediction of what admins will do here won’t influence what they actually do. Haven’t you figured that out yet? And, no “I” don’t have an RfC going; two users (User:Marknutleys and User:OpenFutures) started that. I never knew either of them before this. As for “drop the stick” (*oh my*) are you referring to the part where I and others here active on the project endeavor to do something about chronic and flagrant violations of WP:NPA by Pmanderson? Greg L (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali: Requesting that Pmanderson ignore those whom with he disagrees is probably not going to help, as he needs to engage with the to discuss the article. He has a long list of topic bans since his earlier 3RR violations, so that would fix this particular problem, but he'll just move on to somewhere else, and get banned there too, etc, so that's hardly a solution either. You are right that admins apparently are ignoring both WQA and ANI, making them in effect useless. That's too bad, but little can be done when it comes to that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Or are you, Bali, suggesting that if…

1. PMA is highly regarded for his edits, and
2. enjoys a cabal of long-term ‘insiders’ who all have their Ovaltine decoder rings, and
3. the individual who has been the subject of a clear personal attack has only been on Wikipedia for two years, and
4. doesn’t enjoy a bunch of fan-boys, and
5. made some edits that PMA considers to be imbecile-like ones, so
6. PMA declares that said editor, with whom he disagrees, is “semi-literate” and is an “imbecile” — you know… perfectly permissible straight talk ;-) —, then
7. The wikipedian community (club) will happily embrace a double standard where we allow established editors to persistently break WP:NPA rules because said editors know how to toe the line between tendentious editing and blatant disruption. In other words, we do bite the newcomers… you know… whenever we like-ta.

I have no problem with that… so long as we openly declare that this is the case and don’t pretend that Wikipedia in general—and WP:ANI in particular—is a place where the rules apply to all and admins don’t feel they have to cow-tow to cabals in order to stay *popular* and get promoted. Personally, I prefer to pretend this *is* the case. I prefer to think that people will be people, cabals will act like cabals, admins suffer from self-doubt and impostor syndrome at least as often as anyone else, and PMA will ultimately get yet another 48-hour block (or longer since he thinks it *sporting* to do as he does). By allowing his behavior to persist unabated, we only encourage PMA and people like him to amp-up his incivility. The community will spend even more time with wikidrama in the future here as a result.

PMA’s persistent and clear flouting of the rules has been amply documented. I have zero intention of letting a system behave like it is morally bankrupt and get away with it unless someone here admits that the enforcement of rules is not done even handedly and *popularity* guarantees Teflon-coated status. Either that, or someone explains how PMA’s conduct, which has been amply documented here, is in conformance with Wikipedia’s rules. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the original complaint

• "Mark nutley's claims are false. His ignorance of the subject, and of the English language, are plastered all over Talk:List of wars between democracies, xo I cannot say that he is deliberately lying;"

This is not a personal attack, simply a statement that MN is ignorant of the subject.

• "I see this is going to devolve into another remedial education course. Let me, therefore, be brief:"

Not a personal attack. PMA is saying he is giving a remedial lesson.

• "He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions."

... okay, "ignoramus" is rude, gotta grant you that.

So, aside from the third diff, there's a whole lot of nothing here. And opening an ANI for "ignoramus" strikes me as overkill. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without having read more than the discussion here and the diffs provided, I agree with The Hand That Feeds You. The first two diffs do not show personal attacks. I consider myself a very intelligent person, but there are certainly subjects on which I am ignorant. While I might be a tad unhappy if someone points that out - especially if I disagreed with that assessment - that is by no means a personal attack. The third diff is over-the-top, but I'm unwilling to pass judgement without seeing the whole conversation, either. I see zero need for admin intervention here, especially now that you have opened a user RfC. Disclosure: I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but PMA and I both work on the article Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk)

So, semi-literate is not a personal attack? Wow. Can you please give an example of what *is* a personal attack? And what about these diffs? Also not personal attacks?

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]
6. [119]
7. [120]
8. [121]
9. [122]
10. [123]
11. [124]
12. [125]
13. [126]
14. [127]
15. [128]
16. [129]
17. [130]
18. [131]
19. [132]
20. [133]
21. [134]
22. [135]
23. [136]
24. [137]
25. [138]
26. [139]
27. [140]
28. [141]
29. [142]
30. [143]
31. [144]
32. [145]
33. [146]
34. [147]

(Sorry if there are any duplicates) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that most of what you are doing here is pointing up the defects in the original edits - which were made by you I believe - such as removing sourced material, removing sources, and making some very strange assertions about the Greeks. Really, dropping it would do you much more favours.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I have not removed any sourced material. The sources does not support the claims. Which I diligently pointed out.

2. That still does not warrant personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit URL

I'm trying to make an English and Norwegian page about the Norwegian sound designer and music producer named Marius Hansen, but the URL is occupied by a Danish gymnast named Aage Marius Hansen. no:Marius Hansen and Marius Hansen Is it possible to edit these URLs so the Danish gymnast will have these URLs?: no:Aage Marius Hansen and Aage Marius Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnerikbang (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You could create it at something like Marius Hansen (producer) and add a hatnote. –xeno^talk 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Marius Hansen the gymnast is now under his full name: Aage Marius Hansen. Go to the redirect page Marius Hansen, click on the link at the top of the page you're redirected to, and make your article.--Wetman (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 4 incoming links that will need to be fixed first. –xeno^talk 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the incoming links. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMOS and its application

Can an administrator please take a look at McKownville, New York regarding the issue of having County Londonderry mentioned, originally the dispute was over having the word linked to the city of Derry which IMOS does say must be referred to as Derry and not Londonderry, but the county is to be called Londonderry. When I brought the issue to the WP:Village pump the issue was split 3-2 in favor of changing the link to the county to keep the name Londonderry as the source mentioned it and as the place would have been named in that time period. This was not acceptable to some and now they have removed all all together. After being repeatedly made fun of I replied that I would not argue but would rather this go to the next level of dispute resolution, they refused and have decided to continue to edit out Londonderry (simply changing to Derry was originally what they wanted until a compromise ruined that and now they want it completely removed). I will abide by whatever a fair and impartial consensus (ie- not a giant spam attack on this page of COI editors who work on IMOS related issues) no matter what side is done, I simply think an impartial view needs to be done.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did warn Camelbinky about WP:BOOMERANG before they chose to post here. The issue is whether a guideline should be followed, and Camelbinky's ownership problems, failure to assume good faith and abusive attitude. Comments such as "this is not an article about Ireland in any way, please stick to messing up Irish articles since that is what you know", "for someone who is so concerned about "comment on content not the editor" you are surely a hypocrite" (for the record I never said "comment on content not the editor" either), "You are a disruptive POV pusher and I do not have to respond or engage in debate with you because of that" (and "But that brings you here with a COI that is hard to ignore" and "This discussion is over, the dispute is not resolved in your favor"), "The whole purpose of some editors here is simply to remove from Wikipedia the word Londonderry and not to improve this article" speak for themselves. This is essentially a content dispute, no admin action is needed. O Fenian (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked that this be brought forth for content dispute resolution and that offer was declined. Taking my words out of context of what I said around them and from what O Fenian said to provoke the words in the first place is ridiculous and another example of those brought to AN/I having the thought process of "bloody the witness", boomerang is simply an essay that those with that philosophy use to try and legitimize that tactic. It is scummy when a defense attorney does it in a rape case it is scummy when it is done here. I suggest if others want to make my reactions and comments an issue that a new thread be made just for that and Ill take whatever punishment is decided by consensus. However I do not think that should muddy the waters about O Fenian's continued crusade across Wikipedia, to which he was warned previously about not doing, this is disruptive and violates common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting for any person not familiar with the various naming issues on Irish matters, that the Derry for the City, Londonderry for the County is one of the few stable areas in a difficult area. I can't see, and I have no recollection in several years of any warning to O Fenian in respect of any wikiwide campaign to remove Londonderry, so that needs to be supported by a dif or withdrawn. I also note that Camelbinky properly notified the editors involved of this ANI thread, but also chose to notify one and only one other editor namely a SPA who takes a consistent strong Unionist position. The detective work to discover that name could as well have discovered the names of 4/5 admins with experience of this area whose invitation would have helped gain a neutral perspective. --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear case of a spoiled child throwing their toys out of the pram. Why oh why didn't Camelbinky engage in the discussion that I started on the talk page rather than first running off to the Village Pump and then here. Complete waste of Admin time. Bjmullan (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More insults. And regarding warning there is on their talk page right above my post informing about the AN/I!!! So no warning about a campaign of Londonderry to Derry?! Whatever. Talking to Bjmullen is Bj telling me what to do and if I dont do it he resorts to insults and snipping at me. He has a COI and is a POV pusher.Camelbinky (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-3 to Bjmullan (talk · contribs) for WP:NPA. Please resume your bickering politely. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's fine to call someone a COI and a POV pusher without reprimand but to compare someone's actions to the behaviour of a child constitutes a warning. What about assume good faith? Produce evidence of your claim or take it back. Bjmullan (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has been warned about edit warring, WP:POINT and WP:Battle as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I brought Toddst1 to the Wikiquette noticeboard for his continued actions. If Todd is going to accuse me only of those things and not the other party then obviously there's an issue. This is not the first time Todd has accused me of this, whenever I am a party to something Todd shows up to accuse me of the same thing. Can someone without a COI please comment? Warnings from someone with a COI are unacceptable and I suggest Todd stay away from commenting on things that are about editors he has had bad dealings with in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick to bring others to book... but what about your unfounded accusations against me. There is a saying "put up or shut up". Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is continuing on the page. Mo ainm (talk · contribs) warned and LevenBoy (talk · contribs) blocked (has had numerous BI EW warnings and was canvassed to this thread and edit war by Camelbinky (talk · contribs)). Toddst1 (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but Bjmullen canvassed and brought O fenian to the discussion before I went to Levenboy and only went to Levenboy because he had previously warned one Bjmullen regarding this issue before. Get your facts straight and I find you blocking people in this dispute to be highly irregular since you are being brought here for disruptive behavior at that very dispute!Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 disruptive and rude behavior

User:Toddst1 has tried to stifle discussion, first at the Wikipedia:Village pump regarding WP:IMOS implementation across all of Wikipedia first by closing out the discussion prior to a resolution, then after I undid that based on the fact that people were actually commenting and things were getting interesting he then posts a comment "See WP:LAME" which was not only unhelpful but disruptive. He claims I've been warned multiple times for canvassing and reverting, which a detailed look at the history of McKownville, New York will show my edits werent excessive or reverting, especially considering what other users are doing there. Which for the record he is the one who "warned" me, a weak and meaningless warning and I havent reverted anything on the article since discussion began other than to implement what I thought was a compromise once! He is not contributing to the discussion or to a compromise and never did. Todd simply doesnt want this discussion to take place and needs to be asked to stay away. His "lame" comment was placed at the Village pump for no reason other than to cause disruptionCamelbinky (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See related WQA. More canvassing forumshopping similar to bringing his edit war dispute to content noticeboard discussion, ANI (above) and Village Pump. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like forum shopping to me. Basket of Puppies 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Correcting CB's statement above about my comment on Village pump: I added a much more specific link to Wikipedia:LAME#Ethnic_and_national_feuds which has a section directly dealing with his edit war topic.

Yes, I meant forum shopping (brain fart) Sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The village pump was for IMOS as it applies across all Wikipedia, was not intended for just that article. The content noticeboard was after others said they would discuss it there (they never showed up and it never got going). AN/I was for disruptive behavior and rude comments, not for the content. Not forum shopping. Plus this thread is about Todd's behavior, but of course this is becoming "bloody the accuser" instead of deciding whether Todd was ok in his "lame" comment and attempt to disrupt discussion. Nice. This is why people leave Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Todd has now decided to block someone who happens to agree with me for edit warring, I havent seen if he did or not edit war and frankly dont care. It is highly disagreeable for someone who thinks the whole discussion is "lame" and is brought to AN/I to then go and block someone at that same discussion! Can an admin please ask Todd to remove himself from all aspects of this content dispute as Todd has no good contribution to actually resolving the issue at hand and just wants to warn and block people. We need admins and other non-COI editors to help compromise and resolve the issue, not just throw everyone out of the pool.Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For what's it worth the limited contact I've had with Toddst1 seems very fair to me. Thanks for your impartial input and the warning. Bjmullan (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME is an apt description of the overall fight - call a spade a spade. It is not a violation of WP:NPA as it is a description of edits and not editors. The way this has been dragged through multiple forums in order to try and find a better-liked answer is, indeed, worthy of inclusion WP:LAME...perhaps the OP should actually read that page, back away, take a few breaths, maybe a glass of Merlot or two. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, please actually look at what has gone on! How has it been "in order to try and find a better-liked answer"?! In fact I've been getting more and more people who agree with Londonderry being the preferred word including User:Kotniski and User:Dmcq both of which are more active in policy-writing than anyone else at the discussion. I havent in any way gone to other places to find a "better liked answer". This is ridiculous if no one is actually going to look at what happened and instead just draw conclusions based on words that are thrown around like "forum shopping".Camelbinky (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I made no overall comment about the genesis of the dispute: I'm commenting on your unbelievable insistence that WP:LAME does not apply, or that calling a WP:SPADE was somehow disruptive or rude. You completely dismantled your own argument by traipsing forum through forum, and your continued finger-pointing at one specific user when it's you who have been the cause of the problem overall. Seriously, if you were to kick the person who is most responsible for your problems on Wikipedia in the ass 100 times, you wouldn't be able to sit down for a week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think nobody has looked at what has gone on? It appears that the consistent answers you're getting don't suit your opinions and you're repeatedly forum shopping. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE, as well as WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT which you were warned about here. It's really becoming tiresome, if not only disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How have I not been getting the answers I was I looking for?! Yea, keep just saying whatever you want and hope people take your word for it. I'm sick of you just spouting whatever you want and not having anything based on facts! You have been disruptive in trying to shut up everyone from discussing the real issue at any forum so a compromise can be reached. Instead of helping reach a consensus you just think everyone who wants to work towards a solution is being disruptive. I'm done talking to you, do not respond or contact me in any way as I asked you before to stay off my talk page and you ignored that and contacted me again because you love drama and have to instigate and push and prod, stay away from me, stop following me around, dont call me names as you've done previously, and stop making things up. I am getting afraid for how you will continue to escalate this and afraid of you and taking the joy of editing away from me, read WP:harrassment. If you think I'm a bad editor check my contributions before you say something stupid like me not editing is a good thing, since you have a habit of insulting me anywaysCamelbinky (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

...and there was the 101st time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And how was that civil or helpful and not disruptive right there?! Im sorry, I'll just shut up now and accept that there is somewhere apparently the policy that "if you disagree with Camelbinky all you have to do is be uncivil and refuse to compromise and insult him and if he complains just attack him and just start saying that he has done things wrong and make up things about what he does, people will then not listen and will put their focus on Camelbinky and ignore what you did wrong". Editors know how to play these games and its not just against me they play those games, some I have seen come right out and say that's what they do. I didnt battleground, I didnt edit war, and I didnt do anything I'm accused of. But its ok, because this is just a big online high school.Camelbinky (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the only admin around here who is "disruptive and rude." Look at how disruptive Seresin (talk · contribs) is here. WP:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING! Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Seriously, how is it ok for him to do this?! How is that not harrassment?! I've asked to be left alone and all he does is try to embarress and throw out whatever he can. For the record I was vindicated on the whole problem with Seresin and he was told by multiple editors to stop and the dispute was resolved in my favor. Please tell Todd to leave me alone and stop talkinga bout me!Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously trolling through the history of my talk page and its getting creepy, like I said I'm scared of how he's escalating this and I have no where to turn because no one is listening. I will make it very easy, I'll just retire. I have been open and honest in the past about emotional and psychological problems I have and if I allow this harrassment and embarressment to continue I will not be able to take care of myself, I'm freaking sitting here like a child crying and having a breakdown because I seriously feel a problem here and its not getting even looked at fairly. I cant stand this and this should be an embarressment to how Wikipedia works. You should all be ashamed of yourselfs for standing by. Whether you think my complaint is valid or not it deserves a fair hearing instead of me just being pummled and insulted and ridiculed and embarressed. Obviously its an issue I think is important. Todd is a bully and this is wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you bring accusations like this against an admin to ANI, you need to understand that we're going to look at your interactions with other admins - and guess what? a pattern jumped right out, as soon as I searched on "warning" in your talk page history.

On your other issue, you have no right to expect someone not to post on ANI in a thread where they are accused of wrongdoing.

I recommend you take some time off from editing. I hope I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, it might help you to avoid embarrassment if you used a spellchecker. I mean this in a purely constructive way, not as a means to embarrass you. That said, perhaps you should consider stepping back from this issue for a little while if you are experiencing such an emotional upset. There are strongly divided opinions here that will not be easily reconciled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DC's first two sentences seem uncalled for, and more than cancel out the excellent advice in the last two. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I'm sorry to see you've had unhappiness here. I've looked into this and can tell you, Toddst1 has not been bullying you. This is an open editing project run mostly by volunteers, the contribution history of more or less every account is automatically logged and linked for all to see and anyone is welcome to look at an editor's contributions as a set. Although there are many fun and rewarding things that can happen when one edits here, now and then it can get nettlesome for any editor, almost all editors, for sundry reasons. If you take a break from this, even for a day or two, it's highly, highly likely you'll find things are not so bad as they seem to you now. I can give you a tip, many experienced editors have learned the hard way that when one becomes stirred up (emotional) about something here, whether or not one has edited within policy, by far the most helpful thing to do, is stop editing until one's feelings have settled down. These may seem like hollow words to you and that's ok too, but you may indeed find that breaking off on one's own for even a very short time can often do wonders here. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, but I think the normal procedures have been circumvented. A page about something connected to Judaism (but also to classical antiquity and Christianity) being moved to a more Jew-centric article title with a discussion on Wikiproject:Judaism (Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) instead of on the talkpage through the normal "requested moves" process.

I left a comment here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism)#Page_move and notified the mover, but would appreciate some admin feedback.

This appears to affect multiple pages.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they did that, WikiProjects don't own article or decide their names. Feel free to list it at WP:RM to get a discussion beyond a single WikiProject. Fences&Windows 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only way to handle it? It would reverse the burden of proof, so that if there is no consensus it stays at the new address. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page move should be undone, and proper discussion to take place. The discussion and a vote was started at pretty much the same time, and the person who started the discussion decided the outcome. Apart from the temple articles, it was only judaism related pages that were notified, and I do not know why this wasn't listed at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole: It is only logical and correct to assume that a subject that primarily concerns Judaism and is critically important to it should be centralized at that subject's main project talk page as was done. Every religion's project talk page need not have been notified. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc do not identify Judaism editors when holding serious discussions about topics that are central to their religions. Otherwise it would have become a real spam fest to notify dozens of pages when already ten had been. WP:RM need also not have been notified because at the outset the redirects and page moves could have been done by anyone in any case because at the time First Temple (Judaism), Second Temple (Judaism), Third Temple (Judaism) were all empty red links. (They have now been trimmed to the more neutral sounding, but still objectively correct First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple.) "Proper discussion" as you call it did take place starting over two weeks ago and it was quite comprehensive. The outcome was decided by the consensus and the votes were a clear-cut and precise way of measuring and recording the outcome as each user either commented or voted or both. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's no point really going repeatedly over what should or shouldn't have been done (apart from that I encourage you to read WP:VOTE). However, now that there are concerns, the correct thing to do should be to reopen discussion to properly achieve consensus. To avoid a fait accompli in case consensus is not achieved, the old titles should be kept for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves

Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may be not showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the three Temple pages to the undisambiguated version (i.e. without (Judaism) added to it). Pages shouldn't be at a disambiguated title when there is no need to disambiguate at all. The page move discussion was indeed mentioned on the talk page of the article, but it was very unclear that this was actually a discussion about a page move. Looking at the move discussion, there was clear support for having the pages at first temple and second temple, but much less support for moving them to the (Judaism) disambiguation as well. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fram: This is very fair and equatable move by you and will lead to more coherence and result in less confusion stemming from conflicting names. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't validity to the discussion at Wikiproject:Judaism, because it isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of a page move. As IZAK points out, it is technically true that this was open to all editors, but I think it is also clear that any discussion on the talk page of a Wikiproject is likely to be slanted towards the views of its members. Plus, WP has a process for page moves which was not followed. So I think, strictly speaking, the page should be moved back to where it was and a new discussion launched if needed. I think "Second Temple" even without the bracketed "Judaism" still reflects a Jewish POV and is insufficiently descriptive (v. recent porposal to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to Second Amendment).

Thanks, though, Fram. I should probably mention that you forgot to move the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the views of a few admins as to what is best in the circumstance outlined would be useful. If admins would prefer to leave things as they are, I won't start a campaign over it, but I don't think it would set a good precedent. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Former IP: You go too far when you allege and complain that "Second Temple" is a "Jewish POV" when the subject itself is part and parcel of Judaism and was for its entire history. The Two past destroyed Temples and the desire for a rebuilt Third Temple are central to Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and to the spiritual goals of all Jews throughout the millennia. To set the record straight the discussion was not just about a mere few page moves, as anyone can clearly see, it was about creating cohesiveness and uniformity in the entire subject starting with the names of the First, Second and Third Temples, even though they have alternate names, but the discussions showed that there are more Google hits from a number of directions for the First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple names, and also starting discussions how to subsequently streamline this entire subject of the Three Jewish Temples and hopefully you do agree that they were and are Jewish Temples and that it is logical and reasonable to expect that they should be known by their Jewish names (in any case there is no problem with calling them First, Second, Third in English directly translated from Hebrew usages over the ages) and not by subsequent names thrust on them albeit in usage in some circles. As for your point that "Second Temple" alone is "insufficiently descriptive" that is precisely why naming it Second Temple (Judaism) is the perfect and accurate name for it that would take care of those kind of concerns, but evidently you feel that the Jewish Temples must be "de-Judaized" and detached and reformulated as entities not belonging to either the Jews or to Judaism, as implied in the criticism not to take it to the Judaism project talk page and your grumbling about the Temples' basic names. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, IZAK. How does the word "Jerusalem" constitute "de-Judaizing"? In any event, the main issue here is process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Revoking Jack Ebs's talk page access

Resolved

 - Talk page access revoked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin remove Jack Ebs's talk page access for consistent vandalism? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please delete all of my contributions

Resolved

 - declined. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please delete all of my, Charlessauer (talk · contribs), contributions. I no longer wish to participate in any Wiki project after User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted several of my articles on Wikipedia. Please honor my request and delete all of my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.15 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, even if you are User:Charlessauer, all the content you contribute belongs to Wikipedia. If there are articles for which you are the sole contributer, you can put {{db-g7}} in those articles to call for them to be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, all of the articles created by Charlessauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are ineligible for G7 deletion, because they all have substantial contributions from other editors. I'm not familiar with any other matter, and so I won't comment on such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The request is declined. See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License if you have any further questions. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR on talk pages?

Resolved

 - answered. 1RR rule does not apply on talk pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes I changed a heading that was misleading. This got reverted [148], I reverted back, and then it got reverted again: [149]

So the question is, is the talk page also under 1RR rule? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifying where the 1RR sanction has been logged would help users answer the question you are asking.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who initially placed the article on 1RR. Only the article and not the talk page was placed on any limitation. However, editing another's comments or edit warring on the talk page is just profoundly ridiculous, and will be met with blocks for general disruption if necessary. Just leave the header as is and counter the points they raise instead. (That applies to everyone, and not just you). NW (Talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with user Ariana301

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

---

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content. [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] --119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.

119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here. Ariana (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided simply says that Iran has relations with the ethnic Tajiks and Shia Hazaras in Afghanistan, those are not Afghan rulers. The Pakhtun are the ruling people of Afghanistan and you need to provide a reliable source that states that the Pakhtun leaders have or had relations with Iran. As far as history goes, they were at war with one another since the time of Hotaki dynasty in 1709. You are falsifying sources.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the source: Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to AfghanistanAriana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 119.73, are you Ali (talk · contribs)? Reason I ask is your post at WP:ANEW. Incidentally, isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? TFOWR 09:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My name is Ali, no I'm not that user.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've amended the WP:ANEW report to use your "username", which is 119.73.1.34 - confusing though that may seem ;-)

My comment about WP:FORUMSHOPPING may need some explanation. In general, you should only report an issue in one place. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this issue should be handled here or at WP:ANEW. TFOWR 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest here what was said in reply to 119.73.1.34 on my talk page. Since this appears basically to be a disagreement on content between just 2 editors, why not close this thread and the one at WP:ANEW and take it to WP:3O for a third opinion. I have no view on the content issues, my revert was purely for an edit that seemed on balance POV and unsourced, and I encouraged the user to discuss this on the article talk page, which he has done. I think it needs extra eyes, because it's stuck, but this probably isn't the right place. I'd hope both editors can remain calm and get this resolved amicably.  Begoon^talk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources, one from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University for the Afghan-Pakistan's long-lasting tension (in here) and the other for Afghan-Iran historical and linguistic ties from the Council on Foreign Relations (in here); but 119.73.1.34 removed both sources in here. In addition, he/she placed the CFR's reference after a sentence which has nothing to do with it (here), and in addition without even writing the source in a complete reference style. That's a vandalism by itself. He/She uses uses the texts published by the embassies of the two countries, instead of using the media or other scholarly sources which are impartial and unbiased. Ariana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310 is trying to built controversy in the Afghan foreign relations section. She should explain the long-lasting tension in the main article Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The section I edited is mainly focusing on the current-relations. She believes the words of Afghanistan's politicians are irrelevant and decides to remove this Afghan foregin ministry statement about Afghan-Pakistani relations. I made my argument clear at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military but there she is not writing anything important other than calling me POV pusher. Along with that she is showing anti-Pakistan sentiments because according to her she lived in Pakistan and was probably harrassed by Pakistani police, using her own personal experiance to explain Afghan-Pak relations with an anti-Pakistani way. That's why I brought this here.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could both keep arguing about content here... Mine was only a suggestion, after all...  Begoon^talk 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! WP:3O would offer a neutral editor with friendly advice. WP:ANEW will offer a bloody-minded admin choosing between 0, 1 and 2 blocks... ;-) TFOWR 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happymandem is out of control

We need an admin/clerk there ASAP as Happymandem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mandemhappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are being racist to each other in that SPI and they are fighting. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked. See my comments the SPI page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sjakkalle, I'm sure there are some sleepers. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Talk:New antisemitism

Resolved

 - User blocked by Dougweller (talk · contribs). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

99.231.81.164 (talk · contribs · count) and his various clones keep on reinstating material removed by User:Mbz1 and myself on this talk page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp for confirmation of the clone status and Mbz1's description of previous stalking behaviour against her.

I request that an admin either considers the CU result and take action against the various linked ids or puts the talk page on review so that the puppeetteers edits can be stopped from displaying. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat?

I just reverted this, in which someone threatens that they "will commit suicide to get on Americas Got Talent. If I don't, I might just do it."

It looks more like some desperate attempt to appeal to Simon Cowell, but I want to err on the side of caution and report this here. I will notify the user. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things in that post strike me of being red flags of people who have suicidal ideation, so I would take this seriously. I'll try to help.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP is a comcast address, geolocates to Owings Mills, Maryland, but I wouldn't take that as reliable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, i found this.

Dial 911
Non-Emergency complaints	410-887-2222
Terrorism Hotline	1-800-492-TIPS
Metro Crime Stoppers	1-866-7-LOCKUP
Gang Hotline	410-823-0785
Crime Information Hotline	410-583-2216
Gun Hotline	410-887-GUNS

Pilif12p :  Yo  19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dropped an email over to [email protected] with the details and WMF contact info. Someone should probably call if they get a chance; I just don't have time to spend an hour on the phone with them. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'm willing to COMMIT SUICIDE to get there." somehow I'm not quite picking up on the cause-and-effect here. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, isn't Simon a judge for American Idol, not America's Got Talent? 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this is of any help, but apparently there is a video entry for the show from someone with that name. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I called and reported it. Had to relay the info three times. They said they'll take care of it. I found two Vo families in Owings Mills, MD using whitepages.com, so he could be at one of those. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor disruption -- Darkstar1st deleting talk page comments

In violation of WP:TPG, User:Darkstar1st has, for some reason, decided that he is entitled to outright delete the talk page comments of other editors even when they are directly discussing the progress of the Wiki article. He removed my comment (and another editor's with this edit.

I insisted that he restore the comments: [155]

Instead, he gave a statement to justify his actions: [156]

I find User:Darkstar1st's apparent WP:OWN issues with the talk page to be disruptive. (I also find them disgustingly ironic, given that he's garnered quite a reputation for soapboxing, as mentioned in a previous ANI.) Of course, I can revert his edit to restore my comment, but -- given his declining of my request -- it seems the underlying issue would persist. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment has been restored, i have asked darkstar to not remove comments unless they are blp violations or personal attacks per WP:TPG, i am sure he shall not make the same mistake again mark nutley (talk)

A note that the comments were restored by an editor not discussed or represented here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GoldVillage

Resolved

 - troll-be-gone applied. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the latest comment at User talk:GoldVillage, I suggest it might be time to block Talk page access too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the comment, and disabled talk page and e-mail access for the editor. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tsics

Resolved

 - Wuhwuzdat has reverted all their edits, and Syrthiss has re-blocked with talkpage access restricted. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're done here. TFOWR 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I've just blocked this user, who may or may not represent the United Kingdom's "Trading Standard Institute & Consumer Direct". I blocked them for spamming.

Two requests:

1. Please review my block.
2. Assuming the block is OK, I'd appreciate help reverting their edits. Incidentally, their edits are quite interesting - cunningly worded to look like blatant spam (punting "cheap tickets!"), they in fact advertise the UK government's consumer service website - see this example. That evil editor, SineBot, is hindering my use of rollback (again - I swear I'm going to block SineBot in a fit of petulance one of these days... but I digress...)

Thank you very much!

TFOWR 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Official site or not, the spam is unwelcome and unhelpful. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New editor redirecting to sock

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here but user:COAOneHundredTwo started by removing the permanent block notice from User:MidnightBlueMan and has now redirected their user and talk pages to Midnight. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quacky enough for me, if not then still very odd behaviour. Can always use an unblock request to state a rebuttal. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...which they've done. Apparently they're not a sock at all: they just "admire MidnightBlueMan very much". Quack! TFOWR 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all locked up now, marked as resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Drive by tagging from User:Bigvernie

In the past two days, Bigvernie (talk · contribs) has made more than a hundred edits, nearly all of which have been about notability. Some he's just tagged as non-notable; others have been PROD'd. Some have been fairly frivolous, as the articles are clearly notable. I wouldn't have brought this up, but notes to his talk page have been regularly removed. I don't know if he's intentionally being defiant or what, but this seems to be increasingly disruptive. Oh, and in full disclosure, I notified the user about this thread, but he removed it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)`

I also note that you have attempted to discuss it with the user (as have others apparently) but the user has removed those notices also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He added a prod to Wang Jinghong, a slip of an article but mine own, a kind editor removed it saying "a fairly obvious de-PROD" - I don't know why he PROD'd it. He's clearly an experienced editor. I guess I should add my comments on his talk page, if he won't discuss his actions, then he'll have to stop until he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd suggest to remove their ability to use Twinkle; then, I think an admin should give them a final warning that they're being disruptive; in my opinion, failure to take heed should, finally, result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed ACE Cougar as a snow Keep (yeah, trout me for having an article prod'd and doing this). I've also told the editor I expect him to start communicating on his talk page and here, if he continues without discussion, block him. RL calls. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've revoked this editor's Twinkle privileges. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just declined his PROD of Zone of immunity because it essentially argued that there were more definitions than were represented in the article, which is of course a perfect reason to expand an article but a lousy reason to delete it. I was going to mention it on his talk page but when I checked the history it didn't seem like it would be worth the bother. This project works by consensus, users who refuse to discuss matters with other users need to be shown the door. Hopefully Vernie will get that message and it won't come to that. I agree that his ability to use Twinkle should be revoked in order to send the appropriate message about this type of editing and slow the disruption being caused by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, seems I didn't close Ace Cougar after all, some sort of clash, Bigvernie withdrew his nomination saying "Withdraw nomination - I didn't know that "the author" owned this article or that other editors needed to wait for him/her before raising what I believe are valid concerns about this article. Although I do not share the perspective of those above, I can see that the wagons have effectively circled this article. ". Not good., but he's responding on this talk page, I've reminded him that he was told about this discussion. G'night. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He PROD'd ACE Cougar. I removed it, as it was clearly notable, and the author is away (you are meant to notify the author when PRODing, but as it clearly states on their user pages they have no access to the internet until August 10, it seems common courtesy to to wait until they're back.) Not pleased with this, Bigvernie then decided to AfD it. It is very suspicious, as these action are being repeated on various articles. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized there was a thread on here about him. I was just pondering if he is the same person as User:Andy14and16 who was doing similar drive by tagging and was blocked as a sock puppet [here]. I have no proof other than the behavior seemed similar to me and that he had targeted some hip hop and hockey articles which are the same sorts the other user did. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this could be User:Dalejenkins since he liked to mass-AFD things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Experienced user insisting on info which is not in source

Hi, Taivo (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds info while sources does not contain that, removes "not in source" tags and does not accepts changes in accordance with sources which reverts to his own interpretation [157] [158] [159]. See also Talk:Ukrainian language#Ukrainian not a language - just a dialect of Russian discussion from May 6th. --windyhead (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please attempt dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion, advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, or the content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No he's not. As he has stated repeatedly, he has read the entire book. You appear to be the taking one or two sentences to which the reference applies as a quote, and arguing that the 'quote' doesn't contain the exact words. In fact, Taivo is summarising much larger chunks, and referencing them to the work he is summarising. What he's doing is fine. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.237.153.224, needs block quickly

This sockpuppet, using a different IP range, caused several hours of disruption yesterday involving two CheckUsers, several admins, and other editors to clean up. Please block it now before he starts the bot like edits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.237.153.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Er... evidence? Link? Something? Admins are not mindreaders. Fences&Windows 22:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Argues about position of Hong Kong in a list? Check. Follows my edits? Check. Revert wars? Check. Immediately tries to start talk page discussions? Check. [160], was yesterdays SPI report, notice the absolutely huge range of IP addresses that got blocked. The behavior and usage of English is exactly the same as it has been for several years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't that hard was it? You might be stuck in a battle with this user that's been going on for four years, but it's the first I've heard of them. Done for 48 hours, they'll IP hop soon I imagine. Fences&Windows 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, if not later today I am sure. Thanks for the assistance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

116.49.134.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I believe this IP address may be in a range used by an ISP level transparent proxy, so it may be a /24 the edits come through. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon and BLP / User:Freakshownerd

Freakshownerd has been occupied for the last two days with edit warring to overturn long-standing consensus versions of articles including Phillip E. Johnson, Peter Duesberg, Denialism and AIDS denialism whilst making accusations of vandalism, slander, orchestrated plots to disrupt Wikipedia, lying and distortion. A well-written summary of the user's recent behaviour may be found on Jimbo's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• This was originally two sections, merged by me. Fences&Windows 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the latest example of his abuse of editing privleges he just added to the Philip E. Johnson article that (Johnson) "has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech."

The actual statement from the source [161] (in response to a question about 9/11) is: "Now we're seeing how the country is almost cringing in fear of these Muslim terrorists from the Middle East. I see professors afraid to discuss the subject because they're afraid of what the Muslim students will do. They're afraid it won't keep the peace on campus. I never thought our country would descend to this level."

His abuse of citations in another aritcle was also noted by an admin on the wp:3rr board. And he continues to distort content to include lies and misrepresentations of the provided sources, as well as lying about me and my editing history. Please note there is no legal threat from me and I do not intend to go forward with any legal action. The meaning of th word slander is clear, and if someone else wants to pursue editors like Keepcalmandcarryon who use Wikipedia as a vehicle to propagandize by attacking biographical subjects with lies and distortions, then that's their business. I just want the BLP policies to be upheld and his malicious editing to be stopped. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He's also distorting the chronology of Peter Duesberg's career and misusing citations there to disparage that noted scientist (some of whose views are certainly controversial). Freakshownerd (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See response on Jimbo's page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have challenged Freakshownerd (as have others) to provide evidence of instances in which I've misused citations. To the best of my knowledge, my editing has relied on reliable, verifiable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That quote in the Johnson article is an abuse of the source. The source does not say that "Johnson has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech." (here's the text in the article for others:[162]). That is your creative interpretation of what he said. Please remove it. Also, cherry-picking "juicy quotes" is not how we write BLPs. Please use reliable secondary sources. Fences&Windows 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you've already opened a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Philip E. Johnson. Fences&Windows 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, except I'm not the one who filed at ANI. My response is intended only to highlight the disgusting damage and distortion being carried out by this abusive editor and to respond to his character assasinations of biographical subjects as well as his lies and disortions about me. I hope his behavior will be stopped. I've taken the BLP issues to the BLP/N board and brought ithem to Jimbo's attention. We'll see what happens. Obviously, saying professors are scared to discuss Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11 for fear of the reaction from Muslim students is not the same as lamenting the presence of Muslim students or blaming them for incursions on freedom of speech. That's made up of whole cloth. Allowing his distorted interpretations and personal biases into articles can't be allowed to continue. This is just the latest example of the damaging and dangerous editing being carried out by this fellow. These are real people he's slandering. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Nice try"? I wasn't "trying" anything, I was commenting on this being raised at multiple forums. I didn't notice that he had posted first, which was not helped by you starting a new section. Fences&Windows 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm under attack, I'm a bit defensive. However, even if I had raised this very serious BLP violation at multiple forums I don't think I should be criticized for it. Slanderous statements that distort what's in sources could have a very material affect on the man's career not to mention his safety. It's been very frustrating to deal with this kind of subtle disparagement across numerous articles and frankly it shouldn't be this hard to get this kind of abuse stopped in a timely manner. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the specific instances brought by Freakshownerd, but I can say that I have seen KCACO engage in questionable application of sources, here is a BLP one which comes to mind: On our Russell Blaylock article ( visiting professor in the biology department at Belhaven College), insisting on including 'teaches from a Christian worldview' even though the source indicates that it pertains to their liberal arts curriculum once, twice and yet again, apparently due to KCACO taking exception the BLP subjects involvement in the Aspartame controversy. Unomi (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a BLP violation to me. Belhaven College does teach from a Christian worldview, and it's not limited to the humanities. For example: "The Bachelor degree in Biology is a fully accredited degree, with a Christian curriculum based upon the biblical worldview." MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a better source for such a statement than the one presented at the time, which was a section from their website stating: At the center of Belhaven’s liberal arts emphasis is the innovative Worldview Curriculum, which presents history, philosophy, literature, and art as one set of interconnected disciplines. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the article isn't about Bellhaven, it's about a professor. And as was noted on the talk page that content was being added to try to minimize his credentials. Please stop aiding BLP violations against biographical subjects that hold controversial scientific opinions Mastcell. That kind of behavior is utterly unacceptable. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on the Johnson source. I agree that it does not properly support the text it has been used to support. However, Johnson does seem to be suggesting that a high proportion of Muslim students in US higher education are terrorists, which may well be noteworthy (although I have no idea who Johnson is in the first place or what this is all about). --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan101: The last straw.

He's done it again: User:Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 88 has been tagged and bagged. The problem here is this: I've contacted Jimbo Wales about this idiot and apparently nothing is being done.

I have blocked four or five complete IP ranges, one school IP range, reported this little freak countless times at CU, tried three times to mentor him, gotten my offers shoved in my face and still he continues.

Unless and until this freakazoid is shut down once and for all, I am off this project. Leave word on my talk page if you have any questions; my e-mail's been disabled for a little while due to a technical issue on my end. Disgusted, I remain, PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think you're feeding the troll just a tiny bit? What precisely are we supposed to do, send out the hunter-killer robots? Fences&Windows 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but as long as there are proxies, there will be compulsives like Bambifan. He's not unlike MascotGuy, in that he's easy to spot and catch. His edits don't last for more than a few seconds before he gets blocked. They're not bad enough to require revision deletion. I say we just keep RBIing him. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want done that hasn't been tried. Sometimes, nothing works, and you just have to keep up RBI until someone changes their medication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist, but I make it a point not to punch people out. Kind of a general guideline in my life. Need a break anyway and I'm going to be on vacation next week; hopefully, I won't be anywhere near a computer. OK, I'll be fine...this has gone on for yearsand I just want it to stop. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of fraud - oversight needed

An anonymous IP editor has turned up at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, making accusations of fraud against living persons [163]. Could the diff I just highlighted please be oversighted, and the IP blocked? It would also be helpful if the article could be semi-protected, as it has been subjected to frequent abusive editing from IP editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit as potentially libellous. I have not blocked the IP or protected the article. I suspect I'm about to go offline (dodgy Intarwebs...) and it's late, so I'll leave the block/protect to someone else. TFOWR 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. NuclearWarfare has protected the article. However, the IP, 208.105.78.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), definitely needs to be blocked. He's made another libelous edit on a different article [164] which likewise needs to be oversighted. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)