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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Ottava Rima

First, let me say that I have only very reluctantly brought this to ANI. As I rarely, if ever, end up in situations like this, let me also apologize if I have done something incorrectly.

I had hoped that Ottava Rima was acting in good faith, but after interacting with this user several times over the past few weeks, I can only come to the conclusion that this user is a disruptive editor. While Ottava Rima has contributed some worthwhile content to Wikipedia, s/he has been very unwilling to listen to the suggestions of others. I first encountered this user at the FAC for The Drapier's Letters (a series of pamphlets written by Jonathan Swift). Although not a Swift expert myself, I do study the literature of the eighteenth century, therefore whenever any literature articles on the eighteenth century arrive at FAC, I usually take the time to review them thoroughly. I could tell from the FAC that Jbmurray had had an unpleasant experience trying to copy edit the article, so I thought I would try to help out. Sometimes where one editor fails, a different approach can work. I spent several hours copy editing the article. I listed the questions I had after copy editing the article in great detail on the article's talk page. Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change. I had to follow up each one with a second explanation of why the sentence needed to be improved. Even worse, Ottava Rima would just assert some items that were false. For example, I asked if a particular quotation was quoted correctly because the typography looked incorrect to me (eighteenth-century typography is rather distinctive). S/he asserted it was. However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying. However, it could have been an honest mistake, so I kept trying to help Ottava Rima improve the article.

The trouble really began when I began to dig into the sourcing for the article. It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns. His/her poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is illustrated by our discussion about the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. For example, here Ottava Rima asserts that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable, here I explain why it is not, here Ottava Rima asserts it is reliable for Wikipedia, and finally another person enters the discussion to mention the 1911 WikiProject. This fundamental understanding of WP:V is part of what leads me to believe that Ottava Rima is a disruptive editor.

After the FAC for The Drapier's Letters failed, Ottava Rima started reviewing many more FACs. She reviewed two that both Jbmurray and I were involved in: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. At Mario Vargas Llosa, Ottava Rima demanded that the editors include the original Spanish quotations and translations in the article for each and every Spanish source used. Ottava Rima's interpretation of the policy was unnecessarily strict and attitude about it was unnecessarily rude. I have seen no one invoke this rule before in my year and half at FAC and there was hardly a ringing consensus for the inclusion of the translations. However, Jbmurray offered to do the necessary translation. Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation. This rendered the policy quoted by SandyGeorgia during the FAC moot: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." Apparently, everything was open to challenge for Ottava Rima. See: Talk:Mario Vargas Llosa/Archive 2#As Per Sandy.

Now, Ottava Rima has written a review for Boydell Shakespeare Gallery FAC, a nomination I entered. Again, Ottava Rima has misunderstood the policy regarding citation. S/he has repeatedly demanded that inline citations be placed after almost every sentence even though I have explained that the article meets and exceeds WP:V numerous times as has one other editor (see top part of diff). S/he has also begun disputing the factional content of the article without understanding the sources or the statements being made. For example, the article states that Shakespeare (as a national icon) was used to represent rising British nationalism in the 18th century. Ottava Rima disputes this, saying Shakespeare was English. He was - in the 15th and 16th centuries. That is not the question under debate. I have provided her with sources to read, Qp10qp provided a quotation to support the article's sources as well. She has continued to dispute the article's contention without understanding it and without stopping to listen to what other editors are saying.

I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Ottava Rima is deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia. However, her intentions have also been questioned by Jbmurray. Regardless of this user's intentions, it is becoming difficult to work with Ottava Rima at FAC and as Jbmurray notes in the diff above, people are going to become reluctant to comment at FACs where s/he is reviewing. This is not a a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I do not know what is usually done in these situations. I am primarily a content editor and I create articles in my little backwater. I am relying on the administrators here to offer some help. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice, that post is far longer than what I usually commit to reading. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm an English major - I write long. Should I revise? :) Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Long of the short, from someone who's also worked (sometimes frustratingly, sometimes not) with Ottava Rima; user seems to act against or misinterpret WP:V, attempts to impose this misinterepretation on others, and has been disruptive in some cases. Incivility is also brought up as a concern. My interactions with the user are limited (IIRC) to WP:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires, which is ongoing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does Vandalism come up anywhere here? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see V was piped to Verify. And misinterpret? So you are saying that four sentences per paragraph on obscure 18th century don't need a citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I thread, concerning civility, was just closed. I won't comment during an ongoing FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of making the appropriate fixes, she turns to ANI. Does anyone here believe that, for a Featured Article, having more than 2 sentences linked to one citation at the very end of a paragraph on an obscure 18th century topic is not one that is challengable? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's written 8 FAs (admittedly, not on that topic, but I have reviewed in that area too), no, I utterly disagree with you. For a featured article especially, it is assumed that the reference at the end of the paragraph covers everything (2 sentences, or more) within it. The only exception is for direct quotations or claims that are highly likely to be challenged. I encountered the same thing in my FAC; I found myself duplicating the same reference 3 times in a row to satisfy your request, on relatively minor (ie. unlikely to be challenged) issues. Kindly cease. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And when someone adds a detail later or decides to rearrange a sentence, what do you do then? Your suggestion is impractical nor does it abide with the fact that Wikipedia changes over time. We don't allow "Ibid" for this reason, why would we allow an invisible substitute? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of new details should be accompanied by a source for that detail, if it doesn't come from the same source as the rest of the paragraph. The rearrangement of a sentence should be done in a way that doesn't contradict the source used for that sentence (and paragraph). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't stand up to the test of time and is impractical. The new users might come by and not even know what part of the sentence is sourced. You are assuming far more than what can be assumed, and you do a disservice in your assumption. There is no information provided for future users on the nature of the information put forward, nor is there anything in Wikipedia MoS, Policy, or Essays, that say "if its not cited except at the end, that citation covers everything else". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If a new user comes by and adds information without a source, you can either revert, or find a source yourself. There is nothing in essays that requires a source for every sentence, either. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

I have never said every sentence, and it is incivil for you to blatantly misstate what I have said. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict:) Comment. I second Awadewit's summary. And likewise, I am contributing here with some reluctance: I am not someone who seeks to have fellow editors punished; rather I try to work constructively with other editors wherever possible. But I'd also note that, in addition to the ANI discussion to which SandyGeorgia points, Ottava Rima has managed to antagonize a whole range of editors across a wide variety of different contexts.
• Above all, perhaps, Ottava Rima has a pronounced tendency to dig his or her heels in regardless of the consensus or evidence that s/he is shown. There have been plenty of discussions along these lines at User talk:Ottava Rima, though that page is not archived, and critical comments tend simply to be deleted.
• At various points I had thought that Ottava Rima was starting to adapt better to the culture of collaborative consensus-seeking that characterizes Wikipedia. But then s/he will return to a stubbornness that does indeed, I believe, constitute a form of obstructionism.
• Awadewit has shown great patience in her dealings with Ottava Rima. She has truly gone beyond the call of duty in attempting to respond to any concerns raised, and in assuming good faith. Unfortunately, Ottava Rima does not respond. This is not good for the encyclopedia, it frustrates the important process of Featured Article candidacy and reassessment, and it is clearly a drain on the resources of Awadewit, one of the project's finest and most prolific contributors of featured content. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If she is showing great patience, why could she not add the simple citations? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because she chooses to abide by WP:V and not a misinterpretation of it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

Two points:

1. Awadewit has shown great patience in attempting to explain to you why she disagrees with your interpretation of citation requirements. These patient explanations have also, I would say, convinced others who are contributing to the discussion. Patience is not the same thing as agreement, or as doing what you would bid; Awadewit has been extremely patient in her civil disagreement.
2. The point is, I believe, that there is a pattern of obstructionism here, that is not limited to this particular Featured Article candidacy. It would perhaps be better not to concentrate solely on the details of this specific disagreement, but rather to the way in which you often (if not exclusively) conduct yourself at FAC and FAR. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

She can disagree all she wants, but the fact that there are multiple lines that have important details without citations does not mean that she is correct. Furthermore, your second point basically says that you are here for revenge. If that is not the case, please make it clear now. I have not made comments that were unfounded, and I have only put "oppose" to articles that have severe deficiencies or those which the editor refuses to fix. I have worked with many editors to help turn their article into FA status and fix multiple problems. FA is not a pat on the back. Its a serious thing that examines articles in regard to MoS. I have been completely fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to make it clear, if it needs clarifying, that I am not here for "revenge." I am here because I have been invoked (following our interaction primarily on the FAC for Drapier's Letters, which also as you are aware spilled over onto various other talk pages; I can dig out the diffs for those interested), because I sympathize with Awadewit's frustrations, and because I agree that too often (if not always) the way in which you conduct yourself in these discussions is, as I have said, obstructionist and bad for the encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use the term "obstructionist" all you want, but it is a pejorative regardless. My concerns were valid here and they were valid there. Your own students recognized that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a criticism (which seems to me a better word than "pejorative"). But that is why you are here: the way in which you interact with other editors is being criticized. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have just proven that your comments are exaggeration. The vast majority of people I have interacted with have no problem, and even the members of your group seem to be perfectly fine. You, the complainant, and the individual Wasted are the only ones to have had any real problem. It is especially strange that such a simplistic, easily fixed thing could lead to such stubborn refusal. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's worth saying also that numerous people have tried to advise Ottava Rima that the approach that s/he employs is likely counter-productive. Here are just a couple of recent examples, in addition to my own comment cited above: "do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?"[1] "Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people"[2] "Your phrasing often comes across as combative, which hopefully is not intentional. A calmer tone will often get better result"[3] Again, it really is notable that in the main (if not exclusively) Ottava Rima has not taken that advice, and has apparently decided rather that defensiveness, or even offensiveness, is the better course. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If simple, abstract, impersonal words anger anyone, then that is not my fault. There are plenty of editors who I have interacted with who were appreciative of my contribution. I find it offensive that you would go against WP:CIVIL by making misleading statements about my character like that. This for example. This editor didn't have a problem. Or even here where Dihydrogen oxide even thanked me for my work. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about pointing out that at various times other editors have tried to offer you advice, and that you have not taken it. And again, it is not that your contributions are never appreciated; rather it is that there are sufficient times that you have been perceived to be disruptive that a pattern has emerged. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Questions for Admin I would like to ask the following questions of potential admin who look at this case based on many of the things that Awadewit has claimed as bad actions on my part. I would like to know the answers to these:

1. "Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change." Does this mean that discussion of changes are no longer important before making them? Are talk pages there to list demands and expect no discussion? If so, is Awadewit acting inappropriate for arguing about my concerns, as she claims that responses are acting inappropriately?

2. "However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying." Are accusations of lying appropriate when the quote was copied and pasted directly from the online version of Project Gutenberg, and that if there was an error, it was with them? Furthermore, the quote was changed, so isn't it just a tad rude to accuse editors of lying about such things?

3 "It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns." Actually, I took it to the noticeboard, because that is where reliable sources are determined. Is that wrong? I must pointed out that community consensus verified my case and said that the book was verifiable and appropriate. Was that wrong of me to do? According to Awadewit, it was. Is she correct? It can be found here.

4 "Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation." As someone without the sources, is it wrong for me to analysis and point out the various uses of the text to make sure that the sources can be verified? Also, my analysis didn't point out that many major problems that needed to be addressed, and did lead to a few important changes. Is that really so wrong?

That should be enough. Thanks for answering. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The recently closed incivility thread referenced above was not just any incivility: Ottava Rima told four (mostly longtime) editors to "leave Wikipedia" because they disagreed with Ottava Rima on an MoS guideline interpretation. More remarkably, in the long ANI discussion that followed, Ottava Rima persisted in being contentious and disagreeable with everyone who commented or made suggestions. Ottava Rima seems incapable of recognizing how his or her actions are perceived, and does not either know how, or want, to change his or her behavior. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasted, you do know that misrepresenting the truth of the matter is against CIVIL, correct? And that you are being incivil and off topic, yes? That matter was closed with a decision. The decision was not the one you wanted, and you have no right to try and seek some new decision on it here. Your claims were unfounded, your place for putting them were unfounded, and there was no need for admin intervention as decided. ANI is not the place to try and settle your grudges. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then good, we're both happy for people to read that full discussion and judge for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I have seen of the user's own comments above seem to confirm the statements made by the user who reported this incident. Just went through the user's blocklog. It appears that he has been blocked in the recent past (last month) for making legal threats against users and the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersey, if you read the account, you would see that the block for "legal threats" was made improperly and removed. I never made legal threats, and that was clear on my talk page. Your accusations of such should be struck. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your actions following the March 21 block make it quite apparent that you issued a legal threat via email, given your immediate claims that a threat made off the wiki wouldn't count. For example, you removed a post mentioning the threat on the grounds that it discussed a private email, posted carefully worded posts that repeatedly deny only making a threat "on Wikipedia" but do not deny making such a threat, then move to justify your use of email to issue the threat; in the days following, you were engaged in an argument at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats over the meaning and spirit of the policy (arguing that the email was acceptable), and were eventually blocked for edit warring on that page. You regularly insist that users who criticize your actions are behaving in an uncivil manner and should stop commenting or remove their criticisms, and continue that trend here. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Luna, if that was true, my block would never have been removed, and admin would never have spoken on my behalf. That "on Wikipedia" was in addition to. My email was forwarded to other admin, and they agreed on two parts: a) that she was acting improperly by blocking on her own and b) that there was no actual legal threat. Misstating the facts is incivil and this is a serious matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long post to my talk page, I had a hunch that would be coming. A single user's comment is certainly relevant, but does not speak for the whole community and is not authoritative in this situation. If you made no legal threat, it's very interesting that you were unblocked after a retraction of one. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For those curious

The above user, Awadewit, has challenged my claim that certain text needs to be cited. Now, if you do not feel like going over to the FAC review to look at the examples, here are some of the key ones:

"Apart from these popular editions, scholarly editions also proliferated. In the first half of the 18th century, these were edited by author-scholars such as Pope (1725) and Johnson (1765), but later in the century this changed. Editors such as George Steevens (1773, 1785) and Edmund Malone (1790) used painstaking care in collating their editions and included extensive explanatory footnotes from previous editors as well as themselves. The early editions appealed to both the middle class and those interested in Shakespeare scholarship, but the later editions appealed almost exclusively to those interested in scholarship. ""

This is three sentences, followed by a third that was cited. It has claims to dates, the term "popular" and "scholarly", "extensive" and other such keywords that make it necessary to cite.

"The print folio, A Collection of Prints, From Pictures Painted for the Purpose of Illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakspeare, by the Artists of Great-Britain (1805), was originally intended to be a collection of the illustrations from the edition, but a few years into the project, Boydell altered his plan. He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. "

This long passage, with another that supposedly has the citation to it at the end (that would be at the end of the third sentence), has, in this section, "intended", "altered", and "guessed", which would demand a citation to verify such claims, especially when it goes to speculation about a state of mind.

These are only a few examples.

If you have any questions, please, ask. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. That said, in both cases, I believe Awadewit was correct. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I have repeatedly said on the FAC page, almost every piece of information in the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery article (including the statements cited above) is sourced. Not every sentence has an inline citation after it, but every set of topics does. This goes above and beyond the requirements of WP:V. There is no unsourced information in the article that Ottava Rima can point to. There is no requirement that the footnotes appear at the end of every sentence. The one sentence that was missing a note that she pointed out, I added a note to. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If Awadewit is correct, then that means that my analysis of the above as needing to be cited is wrong. Are you saying that such paragraphs above do not need direct citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see a citation at least for each paragraph, but yes, there is no requirement for that, and I believe your analysis is incorrect. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your right, and that is merely your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit is correct as even a cursory look through the existing featured articles, conveniently listed at WP:FA, will confirm. I like footnotes as much as anyone, but one for each and every sentence is rather too much of a good thing. I would advise a short break from FAC reviewing while you familiarise yourself with the precedents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the recent Tale of a Tub demotion. Articles without enough sourcing have been demoted left and right. Furthermore, could you not mischaracterize my statements? I have put up chunks, not one sentence here and there, but large chunks that make claims that need citation. As soon as the article is edited to add additional information, no one but the original creator is capable of knowing what the uncited information came from and will be unverifiable. This has happened constantly. Please, before you make such claims as you have above, do review the actual precedence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did the sourcing on Tale of a Tub and I would agree with its demotion; it was not possible to reconstruct the notes from the bibliography. However, the inline citations on Boydell Shakespeare Gallery are far more numerous than the handful that existed on Tub and any reader checking the inline citation on Boydell would find the information cited in the article. This comparison is spurious. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They were not numerous enough if you have four sentences running before there is a source. If Sandy does not believe that I have a footing, then she would ignore my oppose. If she believes I have a standing, she will accept it. However, it is not acceptable to turn to ANI in order to bully a review into agreeing with you. It is a simple fix. You refuse to make it. I am not the one being stubborn here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an ANI about a larger pattern. Please read the entire statement I wrote. Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think ANI will solve? That my "vote" will be overturned? That it is even a vote? Only Sandy has the right to determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. You cannot stifle discussion in a review by turning to ANI and issuing a complaint. I brought forth a legitimate complaint. If you don't think so, fine, don't change anything. You have shown that you are unwilling to listen to what others may feel are problem. This isn't a game. This isn't a war. Stop acting like this is some kind of battleground. The change recommended was simple. You refused. You took it here for who knows why. Administrators have no authority over a discussion. Only Sandy and Raul have the authority to determine if a concern is legitimate or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, a deliberate misinterpretation of policy (or a refusal to understand policy) is disruptive editing. It is not uncommon for relatively new users to misunderstand policy, but they are expected to learn from their mistakes. Numerous long-time editors who are very familiar with the policy have (politely) attempted to educate when your policy interpretation has been off. Rather than consider that they may be explaining what is consensus, you badger people and insist that your interpretation is the only one that is correct. That is disruptive. I've followed several FACs with which you have been involved and I have tried to continue to WP:AGF, but the pattern continues to repeat. I think you could be a very valuable FAC contributor, but you must have a solid grasp of policy (as consensus understands them to be) before that. I think it would be wise for you to watch FAC for a while longer, read many more newly promoted FACs and gain a better understanding of WP policies before commenting again. Karanacs (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I have never seen anything that says that you can have four sentences in a paragraph with a citation at the end and that they should all be considered as verifiable. If you think that is true, then please, edit the citation guideline to show such. However, you have stated what is not in the policy, and you have done a great disservice to this community by making it seem far more clear cut than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, A Tale of a Tub could have been easily noted, if the primary author agreed with this mania. He does not. He feels very strongly that there is a difference between an undergraduate term paper and an encyclopedia article, and he writes the latter rather than the former. Ottava Rima had been in conflict with that author, and so it makes sense that she or he is trying to make a veiled threat and an argument about his or her own power. The power in that article's equation was mine. I will not play the game of "let's make it look like we're nervous sophomores." I prefer to have a demotion than have a well written article with true statements in it get reduced to banality and reiteration. Ottava Rima's statements here are a consequence of this mania, in my view. Once people fall for the "facts have to be noted" idiocy, they are immediately susceptible to "where's the footnote saying that the earth is the third planet from the sun? where is the note that Galileo was Italian? where is the note that Darwin's theory has been controversial in the 20th century?" If people wish to continue to grace, condone, and chase this form of writing, they will continue to see themselves torn apart, with only pop culture articles (with all web references) promoted. Geogre (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restriction: Ottava Rima banned from WP:FAC except for own nominations, reviewable after one month

Ottava Rima has an extensive and recent block log and responds aggressively to feedback. Awadewit has written two dozen featured articles and has been scrupulously patient and polite. Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it. The plain fact here is that Ottava Rima's disruptive actions pose an imminent danger of interrupting the productivity of our most productive Wikipedians (Awadewit and others). I propose a partial ban of Ottava Rima from WP:FAC; Ottava Rima may nominate his or her own material and participate fully at those nominations, but may not comment on any other nominations. This restriction would be reviewable after one month and may be lifted if Ottava Rima's civility and responsiveness to feedback improve. Durova^Charge! 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, how does this work? You "urged" Awadewit to initiate this ANI, you don't comment on it, and then come in with this solution... I mean, whatever the merits of the proposal, this doesn't look very good. It rather looks as though you had decided that it would be a good idea to ban Ottava from FAC, and then asked Awadewit to initiate a complaint so that you could do so, regardless of the discussion. This may not have been what happened, but frankly something looks a little fishy here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this conversation happen, Durova? Off-Wiki? Did you consult Raul or me during this decision? Does every nominator who is unhappy about a FAC oppose get to suggest a ban at AN/I now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What happened was this: I asked Durova for advice because I rarely get into sticky situations like I got into with Ottava Rima. Durova suggested that I take the issue to the noticeboard. I was reluctant, as I stated in my statement, but I did so anyway. The pattern had become pronounced in my opinion. I read the page about disruptive editors (which I found on my own after reading the instructions at the top of this page) and I spent over an hour working on my statement and finding the diffs. Later on in the evening, I mentioned to Durova how terrible the entire situation has made me feel and she took a look at the thread and proposed this solution. She mentioned that it is always good to propose a solution when posting something to the noticeboard. I apologize for not doing this earlier. If I should have mentioned that I consulted Durova about this issue - that I tried to get advice about a difficult user - I apologize - but that is the whole story. It was one user asking advice from someone more experienced. Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Awadewit. In retrospect, it might have been best had either you or Durova mentioned at an earlier stage that you had been in contact; and indeed had one of you mentioned the proposed solution at an earlier stage. I should say that I haven no problem per se with such off-wiki conversations: it is quite understandable that you should seek advice in such a way. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite simple: I barely know Awadewit. Her content work is well known to me through the Triple Crowns, since I've reviewed dozens of her articles for that purpose. She's been conducting an academic survey and I'm one of her interviewees. We've had a few very dry exchanges because of that. Yesterday she joined us for a Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast, and we talked about some other things. Today she confided that this problem bothered her and asked for advice. I gave the thing a look-over and thought a noticeboard thread was appropriate. Was feeling under the weather and lay down for several hours. When I woke up I wrote the suggestion that had been on my mind anyway. No intention to step on Sandy's toes, no grand behind-the-scenes scheming. Just doing what seemed like the right thing, perhaps imperfectly because my health isn't the best today. Although I'm a rare visitor at FAC, I do have four different types of featured content and nearly 50 featured credits overall. I'm familiar with the dynamic of one vociferous opposer causing others to shy away, and that observation played a role in forming my own opinion here. It would hardly have been possible for me to have disclosed anything before this subthread; what would I have said? This was the earliest opportunity when there was any point to it that I was healthy enough to sit at a desk. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well. Please consider that reviewers are essential to nominators getting their FAs promoted, and doing something that may intimidate and chase off reviewers won't leave all those FA writers in a very good spot when they want to get an article promoted. It's teamwork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Now that I think about it I can see your concern about the potential for wikipoliticking, and I suppose I ought to have contacted you in advance. Eighteenth century literary history happens to be a topic where I have some knowledge, so the factual merits had my attention. One of my weak points, perhaps, is that I sometimes approach matters that are apparent to me on that level without fully anticipating the political dimensions other editors may interpolate. WP:AGF seems like it's supposed to take care of that, but it doesn't always. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - we all know that WP is supposed to be 'transparent' but even given that, any hint that Durova might be engaged in some sort of duplicity is a flight into wildest fantasy. Doc Tropics 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse As an uninvolved administrator, I have just spent a while reviewing Ottava Rima's contribs and history. Ottava Rima shows no understanding of the featured article criteria or of the verification policy, and shows no respect for widespread consensus. Ottava Rima is unneccessarily aggressive in pusing his particular and peculiar interpretation of policies, and does so to the level of disruption, to the level that it becomes impossible to have a constructive discussion on any FAC that he involves himself in. I give my full support to this restriction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Strike my own endorse per Ottrava's good faith decision to pull back for a while... No need to sanction if he is willing to take the advise of others and slow down a bit... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse seems like a reasonable solution though if disruptive behavior continues beyond this further action may need to be taken.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse - also as an uninvolved administrator, I have spent the good part of an hour (with a small break) to read through the history surrounding this thread and agree with what Jayron has said above. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Struck per OR's self-imposed wikibreak. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Endorse it? Hell, I'd do commercials for it. I've tried for several days to get this editor to calm down and simply realize their style of editing and arguing was angering everyone who tried to converse with them, and they've responded with wikilawyering in the extreme. I would endorse any action designed to get this editor to realize their way is not the cooperative way of the wiki. Redrocket (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slippery slope. I recognize and sympathize, but this is an unprecedented and (so far) unnecessary measure for handling a dispute at FAC (or FAR). Has Raul been consulted on the practice of banning editors from FAC discussions? I am very uncomfortable with such a precedent being set so precipitously. I will drop a note on Raul's talk page. If he concurs with this measure, then I may reconsider. Ottava Rima is certainly not the first, and won't likely be the last, editor who may not fully understand WP:WIAFA, and we don't ban people from the page after a few disagreements (which include one FAC where Ottava raised a valid point no one else had considered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Follow up: if there is a civility issue or a policy violation, block the editor for that. But banning someone from FAC for objecting sets a very dangerous precedent, particularly before other measures have been tried, and considering that no FAC nominator is obligated to engage any Oppose. Raul and I are perfectly capable of deciding if an Oppose is valid or not, and AN/I intervention isn't needed to settle FACs. Now, civility, other policy violations, yes, those can and should be settled here, but no editor is obligated to engage an Oppose they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote, and the director/delegate will not be swayed by invalid or unactionable opposes. This intervention may be warranted if the pattern continues, but is not now, IMO. Does AN/I really want to be in the business of deciding FAC outcomes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I was just leaving a note at your user talk page, Sandy. Didn't realize you had already posted here. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can respect that Sandy, and I really would support anyone's right to oppose any FAC... However, the level of disruption caused by Ottava recently isn't just about the director/co-assistant-associate-director-deletegate being able to filter out his disruption; it seems that his disruption is reaching a level where it is difficult for other editors to even contribute meaningfully to the FAC process. The problem is not that he opposes, or even the things he opposes for, its that he monopolizes the conversation with his point of view, to the level where it is driving away other editors who would review FACs, but don't because he scares them away. That level of disruption is a problem and needs to be addressed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango; an opposer can only monopolize if someone is engaging (or not trusting that Raul or I will overlook an unactionable oppose). And, other dispute resolution measures should be tried before we set this dangerous precedent that nominators can come to AN/I when they don't like FAC !votes. Note that the previous thread on Ottava Rima focused on civility, which is appropriate AN/I business. Please reconsider whether FAC reviewers should be intimidated by this kind of action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I used evidence from FACs to make a case about disruptive editing. This ANI is not about any specific FAC vote. It is about a pattern of editing that extends to talk pages as well. The most damage has been done at FAC, which is why Durova suggested the remedy she did, but in no way is this a usurpation of forthcoming FAC decisions. Durova nor I have asked the admins here to decide any FACs. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy, it's not really accurate to say that what's proposed is "banning someone from FAC for objecting." That would indeed constitute a "dangerous precedent." Rather, what is at issue is the way in which this user (often, but not always) engages with others, at FAC and beyond. I think the justification for an FAC-only ban is that the problem often arises at FAC, though it is then perpetuated elsewhere, in an often ever-widening circle. But anyhow: the issue is not that Ottava Rima has objected. Nobody has any problem with that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• No one has to engage any review or reviewer if they disagree. We block for civility; we have *never* banned someone from FAC or FAR to my knowledge, and there are scores of editors who disrupt both of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Sandy, if you & Raul could make that information -- that nominators are allowed to avoid engaging (or ignore) oppose votes -- more visible on that page, I would be willing to oppose this proposal. I think many likely nominators believe, like myself, that all objections must be dealt with or the nomination would fail: this is one reason I have avoided nominating any of my work for FAC. Although Durova's proposal is uncomfortably similar to a kangaroo court IMHO, Ottava Rima has shown a constant pattern of wikilawyering that is tantamount to disruptive behavior. This would justify Durova invoking WP:IAR for her proposal. I believe that if a more regular procedure were used to address OR's behavior, this topic ban would most likely be replaced with a general behavior parole. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I try to encourage that changes to the FAC instructions should be carefully deliberated to reach consensus: I can see that we may need to add something, but I hope you'll understand I don't want to rush over there and do it tonight or tomorrow so this can be resolved. (I'm pretty sure that most experienced nominators understand quite clearly that Raul and I can overlook invalid opposes and our "job" is to gauge consensus, but it probably could be made more clear for new FAC nominators.) I am not saying there have been no problems with Ottava Rima; I am saying this is not the way we resolve them, and this is a dangerous, slippery slope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As an uninvolved observer, I think this might be something to take to an RfC, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this measure. I do think Ottava is causing problems--heck, looking at Ottava's comments where Ottava accuses everybody of incivility is an indicator that problems exist.Balloonman (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, RFC or WQA are the appropriate places to handle this. We have a hard enough time getting enough reviewers at FAC and FAR that we don't need to head down the slope of banning editors who have had a few disagreements and made some valid observations; this will act as a deterrent to vigorous discussion and strong reviews, and could lead to a decrease in FA standards. FAC has a mechanism for dealing with this: the director/delegate can overlook invalid or unactionable opposes, nominators do not have to engage editors or opposes they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote. This is not AN/I business; the previous thread on civility was AN/I business. If the pattern continues after appropriate dispute resolution has been pursued, then maybe, but if AN/I wants to start banning problematic or difficult editors from FAC and FAR over a couple of opposes (one retracted after discussion), I can pass a very long list to AN/I of the real problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. His incivility and constant rules-layering and stonewalling are impediments to getting anything done. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then block him for civility. Don't start a trend of banning editors from FAC over opposes, unless we want to scare off reviewers and see standards decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wrong place (wrong forum). Perhaps a user-conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct should be initiated. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I said at the beginning of my statement, I rarely get involved in these disputes so I am unfamiliar with their processes. What I do understand is that Ottava Rima is disruptive and draining time away from improving the encyclopedia. Why should we engage in this same discussion all over again somewhere else? I don't really understand that. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is the wrong forum, then it is the wrong forum. We don't debate XfD's here, there is a proper channel to discuss XfD's. We don't promote admins here, there is a channel to promote admins. Likewise, there is a forum to discuss issues such as this. If you have the discussion in the wrong forum, then it needs to be handled in the correct one.Balloonman (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although this might be the wrong place for this, it is obvious from the responses that this editor has been disruptive. Even the editors who defend his FAC rights preface it by saying OR doesn't seem to understand the concept of civility. If this is the wrong place for this argument, so be it, but something has to be done. OR's actions are occupying far too much attention on the wiki, and not just in terms of FAC. Redrocket (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you haven't heard an opinion from Raul or me about Ottava Rima's reviews, you don't have a full view. And I'm not giving an opinion with ongoing FACs as that would disrupt the FACs; that's another reason this dispute doesn't belong here, is inappropriate, and the normal channels of dispute resolution should be followed. Something has to be done? Nominators can ignore reviewers they disagree with. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• My vote above to endorse this measure was not specifically about FACs. As I said, "I would endorse any action designed to get this editor to realize their way is not the cooperative way of the wiki." The FAC issue is only a portion of the problem. This editor is not simply making FAC problems, it's a pattern of bahavior that's seriously detrimental to the wiki. I endorsed this action as a stopgap way to try and get them to understand their actions are ticking off quite a few productive editors (at FAC and other places), since they are not responding to any attempts to discuss the matter civilly. If it needs to go somewhere else and a block for civility discussed, so be it, but this seemed to be a good way to specifically show them that their aggressive way of responding to requests isn't helping matters. Redrocket (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron's comments above. Ottava Rima's arguments in The Drapier's Letters FAC show a strong lack of understanding of the FA criteria. Coupled with the incivility and stonewalling attitude, I endorse Durova's proposal. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have voluntarily struck my comments from the FAC in question here. I shall withdraw myself and go on a Wikibreak for a few months. I will (explicitly) not make further comments or edits on articles that involve Awadewit, Jbmurray, or Wasted Time R during this time. I will also make no further comments or edits on articles that involve others stipulated by the community. I hope that such will satisfy all parties involved, and remove any need for admin to take intervention that may set a precedence that will only harm the future of the FAC process. I am one editor, and as such, I am as replaceable as all other editors are. However, the process is not replaceable, and takes time to recover. I shall spend my time editing my own user space, or the handful of articles that I have created/majorly worked on as of late, unless the community shall wish to ban me, then I will be limited to my user page, unless the community then decides to remove that from my ability.

I hope this satisfies all, and this shall be the end of my communication upon this in order to begin the above. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit more extensive than I'd ask for. I wish you well and hope things go better upon your return. No hard feelings, I hope? If you'd ever like to collaborate on a featued picture restoration, please look me up. Sorry we had to encounter each other on these terms. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've found Ottava Rima to be quite inappropriate. She or he seems to be constitutionally unhappy with the idea of a cooperative editing environment. In that regard, the user is not a good fit at Wikipedia in any area. Without a change in manner and a reduction of the flames he or she brings to every edit, the user is going to continue to be "problematic." People change, of course, and this user may be fine eventually, but my dealings (I corrected a comma splice and was told that I don't understand grammar... which is a little funny, in general) have been dreadful. That said, it is not a "topic ban from FAC" that would be useful. The move to AN/I for a community sanction seems difficult, because most administrators won't feel it, won't see it, won't know it. Instead, this is a case for mediation and/or mentoring, because it is not an FAC issue, but an editor-angry-at-all-edits issue. Trying to make this FAC looks far too personal, too much a case of "we want peace." Other mediation, preferrably by a mediator Ottava Rima would agree to, would be best, if Ottava Rima can agree that her or his actions have resulted in far too much conflict. If not, it's a case for another venue -- RFC. Geogre (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slippery slope per Sandy. A more appropriate "sanction" may work better; this is not the solution. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto Let anyone challenge at FAC. If the challenges are besides the point or though irrelevant, they can be briefly answered. this seems too much like preventing people from making arguments t hat the majority does not agree with. DGG (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Geogre and Sandy. It does appear that this user is problematic: mediation seems wise and some sanction may be necessary. But sanction specific to the FA process? Wrong, wrong, wrong approach. We have never locked the door on any of the review processes. At FAR, I've blocked people for the occasional "fuck you" and whatnot. But no one has ever been barred from the page, no matter how out to lunch their analysis of articles or querulous their attitude. Put one way, I would prefer blocking an editor in general ahead of blocking them from the FA process. Marskell (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• By now, this is flogging a dead horse, but I also oppose the ban. Inactionable objections can always be ignored, and reviewers with a history of making inactionable/disruptive comments are weighted differently as well. There is no need for a ban. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to add a few comments before this gets archived. 1) If any of my commentary appeared to be aimed at Awadewit for starting this thread, or if I commented too stridently (I did: this thread really concerned me), I apologize sincerely to Awadewit. The thread Awadewit started did not worry me: the possibility that we would start banning people from review processes did. 2) We already deal with a shortage of reviewers (as do all of the review processes) and charges of cabalism, cliqueism and elitist participation: banning anyone from a review process will not strengthen that process. 3) I understand that some of Ottava Rima's reviews have been problematic and have generated unnecessary stress and work for others, but if we want to ban O.R., I can pass along a very long list of other reviewers who cause an equal amount of stress and work on nominators and reviewers. A FAC ban is not the way to resolve those issues. 4) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: I consider all commentary at FAC, even from reviewers who turn out to be wrong nine times out of ten, because one time out of ten, that reviewer may nail an issue that no one else caught.

My proposed solutions: the director/delegate shouldn't engage in scraps and disputes at FAC, or our neutrality can be questioned. Other FAC regulars should help govern these kinds of problems when they emerge and help deal with disruption. If an invalid or unactionable oppose is entered, experienced FAC participants should point that out, so the nominator can get on with the FAC without having to engage in a dispute, and so the director/delegate doesn't appear biased. When I was reviewing FACs, I often started Wikiquette Alert threads on editors who were disrupting other FACs, and those editors moved along to other areas of editing; as Raul's delegate, I can no longer do that. Regular FAC participants should be dealing with this sort of thing, so nominators can get on with their work without engaging in scraps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rima has managed to discredit himself enough at FAC (at least in the cases that have already been mentioned) that I doubt he will be too much of a problem as time goes on anyway. I just wish he would be civil about things rather than being convinced that everyone else was at fault. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Metros

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, Metros (and others) can do whatever they want with their talk pages in terms of reversion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Metros (talk · contribs), a respectable admin, has been exhibiting bad judgement recently. Duering a civil conversation regarding the misuse of User:RyRy5's rollbacking tools, RyRy5 asked a question to Metros:

OK, but I still have one question for metros. Why do you sometimes revert edits on your talkpage that is not vandalism and it is just a simple comment?--RyRy5 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To which Metros responded:

You've got better things to worry about than what I do. Metros (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that comment just made my face go :| I know that admins are usually fairly condescending but that was just ridiculous. -- Naerii 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Metros (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This simply cannot be tolerated from some of the high ranking users of the project. As I have said, admins are given too much leeway compared to regular users and rollbackers such as RyRy5 and myself. I think that some type of measure should be taken for this, and I have suggested removal of adminship, however this may be too harsh and I would like some feedback from other admins. Editorofthewiki 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on RyRy's page, Metros is (at worst) guilty of bad manners and (at best) of bad verbiage. To suggest sanctions for an uncivil comment is simply absurd. - Philippe 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather petty and unimportant to me. Admins are not expected to be perfect, they are human. I suggest dropping it and getting on with something more productive. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm...users are allowed to revert whatever they like on their talk page. Even non vandalism. Where, exactly, is there a problem (and where is admin intervention needed)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have thought things through, and I think that Metros is just doing his job as an admin, even if it doesn't seem like it. I do not believe that anything is wrong here anymore. Shall this be resolved now?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see many proper uses of rollback I do also see the use of rollback to remove several user's good faith comments. If I saw this from a non-admin I would most likely remove the rollback permission from the person. While you are welcome to remove content you find objectionable from your user page, the use of special tools to do so is not appropriate. I do not think any action needs to be taken other than urging this admin to use his/her tools with more discretion. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the issue that I have with your argument: Rollback and Undo are, essentially, the same action. Rollback just tends to be much easier to use when undoing multiple edits. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's something to consider. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Metro's talk page as it stands I can see that he tends to be rather curt in a number of situations. I don't know him and have not had any interactions, but I can see why this might rullfle feathers in some cases, at least those of random bystanders that may not know what is going on. The only revert I see at the moment was reverting a comment from Uga Man rather than answering it. This leads me to guess that there are some minor bad vibes between these two editors for unknown reasons, but I presume they can work it out themselves. Given an editor can delete content from his talk page using Undo, and not leave an edit summary, I fail to see why using revert would be a problem. For a single post undo it is a precisely equivalent action. I think this business of reverting is a storm in a teacup. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know a user talk should be treated no differently to any other talk page. It's isn't owned by the user and rules about inappropriate editing still applies. --neonwhite user page talk 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Long standing rule that users can remove whatever they wish from their own talk page and it can be taken as read - see WP:BLANKING. Orderinchaos 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the consensus anymore, i have seen plenty of experienced editors say otherwise and it makes sense that a talk page is not owned. --neonwhite user page talk 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is over. I overreacted, as usual. Editorofthewiki 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism or uncontroversially "unproductive edits." I've seen a consensus that an established, experienced editor can use it for uncontroversial reverts on their own talk page. I'm ok with the latter if there is a consensus for it but would suggest that using rollback on the good faith edits of any user can inadvertantly escalate misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think "What?! He rollbacked that edit I made instead of undoing it?! I could have handled an 'undo' but a rollback?? That's just a slap in the face!"? Is that what people really think? Or do people realize that a revert is a revert? Metros (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think editors realize a revert is a revert. I'm not sure that administrators as a class do. They seem to have imbued Rollback with some mystical significance that is beyond me. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think rollback's style of marking itself as a minor edit and not allowing for a descriptive edit summary makes it seem a bit cold and detatched to some admins. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a script where one can change what the rollback summary is. I didn't know about it myself until a month ago - you just have to add the line "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');" (with the semicolon, without the quotation marks) to your monobook.js file. Orderinchaos 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology-focused sock-puppeteer?

Resolved

 – WP:SOCK meets WP:BLOCK SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, isn't there a banned user with an anti-Scientology agenda who uses sock puppets? If I'm right, would someone familiar with this person take a look at the contribs of User:Childnicotine, who appears to be an aggressive SPA with an Scientology-focused editing program. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I'm not "uninvolved" with this editor, who filed two consecutive 3RR complaints about me, one of which was turned down while the other is pending. This isn't "payback", I've just gotten around to taking a look at the editor's contrib list, which look odd for a username that was just created two days ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No takers on this? This user was created on the 24th and immediately started by creating a Scientology-related article from scratch, complete with a quote from Scientology texts. He or she has a deep knowledge of Wikpedia rules and is clearly not a new user, presumably a sock -- but of whom? I presume the user could be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really have enough evidence to get the user banned for sockpuppetry, especially as this could be a legitimate use of a SPA as per the "segregation and security" section of WP:SOCK. (Scientology isn't exactly nice to their critics in general. More specifically, they have an extremely well-documented history of pressuring friends and family members of ex-Scientologists to "disconnect" from them if they do anything critical of Scientology). That is an interesting edit history, though, and it's certainly worth watching. - makomk (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I actually had it backwards, this user isn't anti-Scientology he or she is pro-Scientology. The last handful of edits have been to add Dianetics to various psychology, psychiatry, and psycho-therapy articles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Childnicotine has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71 Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

69.244.181.184

69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs) has left a message on ASE's page admitting he's a sock. It's RYNORT. APK ^{yada yada} 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RYNORT has been indefinitely blocked. User:Blaxthos has previously determined that the IP is a sockpuppet of RYNORT. I don't know if a checkuser was performed. Aleta ^Sing 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't he actually denying being Rynort? Aleta ^Sing 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have reworded my original statement. He admits to being a suspected sockpuppet and he has been blocked in the past for being a sock of RYNORT. APK ^{yada yada} 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this could also be related to Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who also has an odd obsession with Blaxthos, and has only edited two articles: Fox News Channel and Jeremiah Wright‎ (note 69.244.181.184's most recent edits are to the Talk:Jeremiah Wright page). - auburnpilot talk 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He's quoting me from a warning template I gave him back in December, which apparently makes me part of some 'LOL'! cabal. Hell, I didn't even remember what for until I went back and found why. Then I found his reply to that warning. Now 4 months later he returns to my talk page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think AuburnPilot has hit paydirt. Rynort has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, harassment, and incivility. I had previously not connected the two incidents as from the same source, but the probability of two SPA accounts freakishly obsessed with harassing me and editing the same articles with the same points of view approaches zero. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am being accused here, I will defend myself. Last time I defended myself against Blaxthos User:R. Baley blocked me, so I would appreciate it if any independent administrator would keep an eye on this. Blaxthos says I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, and hence am a puppet of the aforementioned user. If anyone is obsessed, it is Blaxthos. He did an very extensive investigation of my interactions with other users in this complaint on the ANI, listed a few quotes of other editors getting heated with me, campaigned on some of his friends talk pages asking them to join in, and had me banned from the Fox News entry. Regarding the substance of his new accusations here in this thread, the only evidence he has presented is that I have gotten heated with him in the past. In reality, the probability of editors with the same POV getting into heated confrontations with Blaxthos is quite high. Here are some examples, and they all involve entries where Blaxthos' abrasive style lends itself to POV confrontations (Fox News and Ted Kennedy entry):

• ... you are attempting to end the discussion... and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. Bytebear (directed to Blaxthos) diff
• Your attack against is both personal and completely unwarranted. User:RonCram (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
• Perhaps it would be best when calling an RfC to allow editors to express their opinions without badgering them. User:Crockspot (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
• Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now. TheNobleSith (directed to Blaxthos after Blaxthos was very uncivil to me because I edited the Fox News article he has assumed ownership of) diff
• Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself... this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me. Arzel (directed to Blaxthos) diff
• Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. Arnabdas (directed to Blaxthos on his talk page)
• ...instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem? Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)diff

Blaxthos claims I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, but the opposite is actually true. He and I had a minor edit war and had some confrontations similar to those he has frequently had with other editors. If anyone will take the time to actually scan through Blaxthos and my confrontations in this Fox News entry archive you will see that he immediately assumed bad faith when I showed up and commenced insulting me and referring to me as a troll. He especially does this to newcomers to the entry, as well as using the "FAQ" to wikilawyer them, as noted by this editor at the Fox News talk page.

So please understand the background that occurred before my alleged "obsession" began. My "obsession", which eventually got me banned from the Fox News entry, was posting this quote of Blaxthos' several times, "ByteBear, you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!" I quoted that after I was accused of "POV pushing" by Blaxthos. For doing that he had me banned from the Fox News entry, per the ANI complaint I described above. Now he is complaining here again, attempting to get me permanently banned (it seems). That, my friends, is obsession. Do a grammar comparison, IP address comparison... whatever you need to do. The fact is, I am not whoever Blaxthos is claiming I am. I have been blocked before for meatpuppetry, and that makes me look bad. But most of the admins in my WP:SOCK case said they believed it was meatpuppetry, and it was a mistake due to ignorance, not evil. But I have apologized, I have contributed to content quite a bit for a newcomer.

If you will look at the latest Fox News archive you will see I instituted an RfC that got some wording changed over Blaxthos' vehement objections. Please do not continue to allow him to take out his frustration on me, as he has already done very much of that. And will someone please warn him about how he treats newcomers? Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needed proof of freakish obsession, and his desire to advance the conflict, that post is it. Continued violations of the restrictions placed on him by consensus at ANI earlier, continued dangerous stalking and harassment, posting "sound bytes" from conversations that happened over a year ago... I don't have time to respond fully right now, but this is becoming insane. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See his first complaint on the ANI against me for an example of true 'freakish obsession', as he calls it. Blaxthos had just as many "sound bites" that he had collected from past conversations of mine. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And the consensus at the previous ANI was for *all* involved editors to not discuss the other involved editors any longer. That includes Blaxthos. However, given that he is leveling brand new accusations against me in this thread I must defend myself.

Blaxthos, please just lay off me and you won't hear anything from me. I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did! Just leave me alone, lay off with the baseless accusations, and this will all go away. Deal? I am trying like hell to avoid discussion about you per the previous ANI, but you continue to obsess about me and bring me up in every accusation you can think of. Just lay off me, please. Please! Jsn9333 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"you won't hear anything from me. . ." seems inaccurate -see next post.

"I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did. . ." demonstrably false, see beginning of this thread. Blaxthos didn't start this thread, nor did s/he first mention you. More to come. . .R. Baley (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (see my post below. R. Baley (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

What I mean is that Blaxthos has made accusations against me in this thread. If he had not, then I would have no reason to be here. It would be patently unfair to say I cannot respond to these fresh allegations simply because it is Blaxthos that is making them. As it is, he submitted evidence that I am a socket puppet. His evidence was, essentially, that I had heated past with him over similar POV issues as another editor. Therefore I have a right to respond and show that many editors have had such heated encounters with Blaxthos. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos' continued definance of ANI restrictions

In a previous ANI thread stemming from a heated debate between Blaxthos and I it was concluded that, "All editors are cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations... any on-wiki taunting, gloating, or basic "poking" (to be interpreted broadly) will be met with a block." This was said to be applied to "all involved editors" in the consensus.

Blaxthos has continued to discuss me on various talk pages, and has just recently started a new accusation against me here. Would someone please enforce the previous ANI and give Blaxthos a warning block. The ANI administrator, R. Baley, seems to be perfectly willing to block me for asking him about Blaxthos' behavior on my talk page (per the ANI rule), as he has done once, but he winks an eye as Blaxthos continues to obsessively accuse and talk about me everywhere he can. Now Blaxthos is asking R. Baley to block me again, because I responded to his latest accusation in this thread and defended myself. Please do not allow R. Baley block me again while shutting his eyes to Blaxthos' behavior.

Can another administrator get involved here and actually enforce the restrictions that have been placed on Blaxthos? I think a temporary block might set him straight... and might actually be required. I am just trying to move on, yet Blaxthos continues to bring me up and level every possible accusation he can at me. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, your behavior is beginning to border on harassment. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that you have been personally involved in the Fox News debate out of which this conflict stems, I don't think you are the administrator to make that call. No offense. I would like an independent administrator to look into this situation. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban

Jsn9333 is currently serving a 4 week topic ban on any article related to Fox News Channel, as outlined on WP:AN/I#Proposed short term remedy. All involved editors have already been cautioned to "not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor."I would like to propose an amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban, in that he may not at any time discuss Blaxthos (talk · contribs) specifically. Almost every edit Jsn9333 has made to a talk page over the last week or so has been about Blaxthos, and this is merely a continuation of the problem at Talk:FNC that led to the initial topic ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. If you don't want me to respond to accusations made by Blaxthos, it would be more effective for you to tell him to stop accusing me. I have discussed Blaxthos' behavior over the last week with administrators on my own talk page. That is not a blockable offense. I have not "poked or prodded" Blaxthos in any way shape or form. I have also been looking for new pages to get involved in and contributed to content having nothing to do with Blaxthos or FNC in the last week. Please just be patient and give me some time.

I am attempting to move on from the previous dispute covered in the ANI, but as mentioned above, Blaxthos continues to level baseless accusations at me here even today. I will respond whenever he does so. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, get over it and move on. Why continue to perpetuate a situation that earned you a 4 week ban from anything FNC related? You say you've made other contributions, but your edit to Old Providence Church is hardly evidence. The point of R. Baley's remedy is that you would have a chance to prove you are here to contribute constructively, and thus far you've chosen not to do that. Don't watch Blaxthos's edits, talk page, or anything else related to Blaxthos and there would be no problem. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to watch this administrators notice board. And when someone makes an accusation against me, I have every right to respond. What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. The point is I have been trying to move on. How about you tell Blaxthos to stop continuing to bring me up if you don't want me to continue to defend myself? Please tell me what is wrong with that suggestion. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you, because obviously nobody is going to support a topic ban on themselves. However, please stop rewording your posts after somebody has responded. It changes the meaning of your comments, and subsequent responses make less sense. - auburnpilot talk 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If I've made any changes after someone responded it has been punctuation, spelling, etc... not changing core meanings of my statements. I apologize for not using the sandbox better. Please have patience. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! it's Sunday, and I'm back for a bit. First point, the condition of the remedy proposed at the 1st ANI report was that everybody walk away and quit talking about each other. I blocked Jsn because he could not walk away. This led to a review of my block initiated by Jayron32 at a 2nd ANI report. At the 2nd ANI, Jayron32, Auburnpilot and myself (3 admins) decided it was fair to unblock Jsn if s/he was "willing to completely, and without reservation, abide by the remedy as per the previous ANI." Though Jsn was following the thread, there has never been an indication on his part that s/he intended to move on. I take that as an indication that they were willing to sit out the block (and have it extended, "In fact, make it a lot longer." -Jsn) as long as they we're able to reserve the "right" to argue and accuse, and generally continue the disruption in the future.

The review of my block at the 2nd ANI, did cause more comments. That's the nature of a review, it means that the issue is not resolved. Thus, once again, there was no "moving on" just a continuation of the previous dispute. Now here we are again at a 3rd ANI (4th, if you count the thread initiated by Jsn, which I combined into this one). And there is speculation that Jsn might be Rynort. I have seen at least 5 (2 topical and 3 behavioral --Auburn mentions post modification above, this is one of them) indications now that this might be the case, but no definitive proof. Personally, I find that Jsn9333's (contribution to disruption) ratio over the last month, to be too low to be allowed to continue to edit, even without making a connection to a previously disruptive account. I would prefer that another admin look at this at this point, but I'm not going to sit by much longer while attacks against users by Jsn continue (his/her repeated invocations of WP:Bite, notwithstanding). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as "disruption to contribution", I began and participated extensively a very detailed and drawn out RfC that ended in a WP:NPOV change, by consensus, in the lead of a major WP entry, the Fox News entry. That alone is a lot for a newcomer, but I have also been involved in several other entries. No one should turn a blind eye to my productive discussion and work while embracing the few examples of heated discussions I have been in that Blaxthos has produced (especially if he is going to ignore the heated discussions Blaxthos has also been in). That is patently unfair.

This latest accusation of his is fresh and completely different from the old ANI thread. I have the right to respond, and all I have done is respond. I did not start this. To say I cannot respond to these accusations is even more patently unfair, and to threaten blocking me for responding to such accusations is incomprehensible. Blaxthos' assertion that "probability approaches zero" that I am a not socketpuppet because he and I have traded barbs in the past is simply not true. I am totally defensive, responding simply by putting forth proof that there are quite a few editors who have traded barbs with Blaxthos. I am not the guy. I know for a fact that there is no proof from grammar matching, network matching, time-edit matching, etc... because I'm not the guy! You could stop this from continuing, very, very, very easily... by simply asking Blaxthos to put up proof or to stop with these accusations. Please do that. Please. Because I have the right to respond to every last fresh accusation, and I must respond or else he is going to have me permanently blocked.

I don't like wasting this time defending myself as much as you don't like having to read my incredibly long, boring defenses. So if some independent administrator will please step in here and ask Blaxthos to have proof when he makes accusations, then this would all be over very, very quickly. I have moved on from the Fox News mess and have started finding other, less controversial articles to work on. Please, someone just tell Blaxthos to leave me be. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:R00m c and User:ScoutCruft

R00m c (talk · contribs) and ScoutCruft (talk · contribs) got blocked based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c, but now we have Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R00m c that says they're unrelated. Despite this both users are still blocked, Room for one week and ScoutCruft is indef. Considering the major factor behind this block is the sockpuppet accusation, which has no evidence to support it, I'm a little bothered that these blocks are still in place. There are concerns about both users going a little nutty with some article cleanup tags, but such activity should never warrant such harsh blocks, especially for "first time offenders". It's been a few days for both of them, and that's far more than enough.

Room in particular has stated a willingness to improve their understanding of the tags and a strong desire to avoid this misunderstanding in the future. I am saddened to see that both users are still blocked. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the blocking admin, User:Dreadstar, has stated that he will not contest an unblocking. [4] -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just declined ScoutCruft's unblock request because he's clearly not a newbie, R00m c has just been unblocked by Dreadstar. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is marked as "resolved", I thought I'd note that ScoutCruft does have checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets. It seems he was the puppet master all along. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Max) using a second account is not a blockable offense, nor is it automatically a violation of WP:SOCK. If it wasn't for Hersfold's comments about additional checkuser evidence, I would be requesting this again. However, lets all be very clear here, we do not indef block users for sockpuppetry based on suspicion.

(To Hersfold) nothing is tagged on the account. Was there a request for checkuser, or was it just done outside of a request? Do we have a diff from the checkuser's comments? -- Ned Scott 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Biff714 editing of Sandra Lee (cook)

• Biff714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who WP:EDITWARs to include WP:BLP violations in both the article and talk page of:
• Sandra Lee (cook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biff714 has been repeatedly warned yet continues. Attempts to get help through BLPN has yet to result in any help. Can someone just block this guy already? --Ronz (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That really puts the S into SPA - every edit is to Sandra Lee (cook) or its Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel has responded to the BLPN with warnings and blocks. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and the Homeopathy probation

Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.

We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him.

“ Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. ”

Scientizzle responds:

“ Wow. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. Here are all the diffs from my particpation on this talk page since the discussion renewed in April: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Please do indicate in which of these edits I recommended referencing Frass et al. If you're saying that my statement,

"Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^ref"

is a recommendation to reference it, you have wrongly interpretated my non-glowing evaluation of this source's utility. — Scientizzle 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Ullman continues to say that Scientizzle supports him, despite his objections.

“ I thought that editors would reconsider this study now that several socks were muted, and I was right! Scientizzle voiced support for including reference to this,[11]. And yet, despite several protests against archiving an ACTIVE discussion, Baegis disregarded these concerns. ”

Scientizzle sees this, and asks:

“ Dana, did you miss my comment above? — Scientizzle 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Ullman responds... by arguing with Scientizzle that he, in fact, supports him.

“ Scientizzle, no, not at all. Did you see your words: "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. " [12] It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time. You clearly say that you're NOT against inclusion...this strongly suggests that the conversation is open. I hope that you will stop stonewalling. You did recommend providing reference to this study in at least a minimalistic way. Therefore, I continue to assert that the archiving of the active conversation is part of a bullying behavior conducted without consensus, in a WP:TE manner with the audacity to inaccurately blame me for TE. DanaUllman^Talk 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Note: Ullman's link to Scientizzle's comment is wrong, it should be [13]

We've gone beyond parody into full scale trolling here. Ullman:

• Argues with Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supports him.
• Claims that Scientizzle did not provide a complete quote, while he... uses elipsis to change the meaning of Scientizzle's quote:

Ullman says Scientizzle says:

“ I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. ”

However, What Scientizzle actually says, in full, is:

“ I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^[ref]" statement). — Scientizzle 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ”

The words Ullman deleted, while criticising Scientizzle for not quoting his full statement, COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of Scientizzle's remark away from being about inclusion of this study at Potassium dichromate.

Background

We start at 15 January of this year,[14] in which Ullman is complaining that he was reverted. He claims the resons are unknown, but his edit [15] not only adds the study, but changes wording to add a strong homeopathic bias to the descriptions more favourable to homeopathy, and removes all critical content, claiming it is not specific enough to the particular homeopathic remedy.(See edit summary here).

He edit wars over its inclusion for a while: [16] [17] [18] [19] Arion 3x3 joins in the edit-warring fun: [20] Then the page is protected: [21]

Between the 15th and 26th or so of January, large sections of the talk page are spent discussing this. On 30 January, Ullman repeats his points, and insists it be included. [22] and is again shot down.

No further discussion on the talk page occurs between February 3 and 19 April. At which point... Ullman brings up the study YET AGAIN, claiming that a few socks that were active at the time meant all previous discussion should be ignored. [23]

He is short down again, by several people.e.g

21st April, he makes the same points again: [24]

He claims previous discussion is "inadequate" and that:

“ Based on my summary of the RS and notability of this study (and its substantial results), I think that you are stonewalling...and you are giving the Arb Committee good evidence that you will not accept any positive evidence on homeopathy. I would think that you would want to show good faith now. Let's work towards consensus on what should be said about this important study. ”

Consensus again goes against him, so he claims that the five or six other editors are "stonewalling"

Baegis eventually archives the discussion, using Template:hat to avoid further disruption.

Ullman objects to this, and tries to pull other editors in to continue to beat the dead horse.[25]

In short, Ullman has gone beyond tendentious editing into full-scale trolling. Homeopathy is under an article probation (Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation). Ullman should be promptly banned from all homeopathy-related pages.

There is, of course, a current Arbcom case, but Ullman is doing this trolling in the middle of it. Arbcom is not a protection from sanctions, particularly from ones like a topic ban that do not prevent the editor from editing the case pages. In short, if this article probation is to be meaningful, Ullman should be topic banned, and probably should have been some time previously.

This evidence has also been submitted to the Arbcom, of course, but it's probably going to be at least a month before they make any ruling, and the disruption is ongoing right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses

Ho, hum. That definitely seems like the kind of problematic behavior (civil pov-pushing) that we are so bad at dealing with. Altering the wording of a quote in order to change the meaning is quite deceptive. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated on an area already under probation. Notwithstanding the current ArbCom case, an injunction that would prevent User:DanaUllman to continue this sort of behavior until the arbitration case is concluded would have my support. henrik•talk 10:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been placed under a three month ban from all homeopathy-related topics (broadly construed).[26] Baegis (talk · contribs) has been warned for incivility.[27] This has been noted at the current ArbCom case.[28] Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ArbCom can always chose to modify it, if they see fit. henrik•talk 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Baegis should have been warned, though - after five pages of Dana being disruptive, it's a bit much to give a warning because an editor got mildly upset at the person causing major disruption. It's things like that thatt allow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be used as a weapon against core policies, particularly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. (Vassyana is, of course, right that it wasn't very civil, and it was only a warning, so, you know, I don't want this to be seen as an attack on Vassyana's judgement, but I do think we could all use a big chat about Civility, if only because we're basing blocks on a policy that considers racist attacks less of a problem than using "vandalism" to describe a really awful good faith edit. Yes, really. WP:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. [Ed: Thank god someone removed that stupid "More serious examples" bit]) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the warning was appropriate. I don't think that a block or topic ban would be appropriate, in part because the frustration is understandable. However, lashing out with insults is not a solution, and will only worsen already bad situations. For some edit warriors, no comment on this particular case, a hostile response is the worst response. Very often, for those making cries of oppression/censorship/discrimination/etc, being attacked both validates their viewpoint and gives them ammunition. CIVIL is not the problem. On the contrary, it's essential to a cooperative working environment. There are a lot of solutions for the problem, but flinging insults (regardless of the reason) is not the answer. On the contrary, it's utterly counterproductive. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, right in every point, but expecting humans to always behave sensibly is a lot to ask =) It's probably not important in this case, but it is worth discussing where the line falls. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, we're all human and thus suffer from that pernicious human fallibility. :) That is part of the reason I didn't use a "standard" warning (template or not). I encouraged him to walk away from such situations and not to let his frustration get the better of him. There's a huge distinction between relatively isolated incidents (the rude comment by Baegis) and a continuing, tendentious pattern of behavior (the stumping by DanaUllman). I probably would not have even bothered with a warning if he was not previously informed of the article probation and previously blocked for incivility. In this instance, the warning served as a heads up and good faith exhortation to walk away from such frustration. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action, Vassyana. This line of argumentation was well past surreal, a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I'm glad we can move on. — Scientizzle 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well-past time for the community to address these types of issues. Disruption is disruption. With new editors, we should accord them good faith and earnestly attempt to assist them in comprehending and acclimating to the principles and accompanying rules of Wikipedia. However, when someone has had such things explained to them multiple times and the person should clearly be aware of what is (and is not) acceptable, it's time to start banning them from topics where they cannot work productively and blocking them if the disruption moves beyond one or two topic areas. There is problematic behavior on "both sides" of many disputes and we need to say "enough of this nonsense" to all disruptive parties who know better by now. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to additionally comment that many times it is said that some people are acting in good faith, in their defense. I want to state, unequivocally, that good faith and intent is not an excuse for disruption. For example, someone may in all good faith be advocating for a particular POV, in the beliefs that it is best for Wikipedia, but that is still completely unacceptable. Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, hello, Vassyana. I assume good faith, and I have a heightened respect for editors who voice critique of my work IF and when they don't have a content dispute with me. Needless to say, it is more difficult to hear critiques from editors with whom there are content dispute because it is more challenging to separate out the critique of my "style" than critique of my "content." That said, I wish that you would have at least heard from me before issuing your topic block of me. I would first like to ask you to reconsider your decision to topic block me for 3 months. Part of the problem here is the misinformation that you have been given. For instance, Shoemaker's Dream asserts, “Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.”

[29] First, I never said that Scientizzle "supports" me. I only wrote that Scientizzle supports the inclusion of the reference to this study (and his quote confirms this).[30] Although Scientizzle only wants a "minimalistic" reference to it, he said that he wanted at least some reference to it. As such, archiving this discussion while it was still active seemed wrong to me. Further, Shoemaker's Dream makes a more outlandish statement. He said that I wrote that there was "consensus" for including reference to this study, and yet, despite giving many diffs, he doesn't provide any diffs for this wrong assertion: "We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him." I NEVER said or suggested that there was "consensus" for this study. I was simply against archiving dialogue that was still active. In fact, just hours previous to Baegis archiving this dialogue, Shoemaker's Dream asked me a question [31] to which I responded. I actually thanked Shoemaker for asking this question, and I gave him a substantative response, quoting an editorial in the Lancet (!) in reference a 3-study meta-analysis on the homeopathic treatment of allergies. Although this subject was not on the direct topic of Potassium dichromate, several of the editors with whom I was in dialogue on this page had asserted that there was no notable research with a result that showed that homeopathic medicines worked beyond that of a placebo effect.[32] And yet, "coincidentally," my reference to the Lancet editorial AND the meta-analysis was "archived" within hours. I was objecting to the archiving this active dialogue, especially in the light of the fact that there was much earlier conversations (and non-active ones) that seemed more appropriate for archiving. Vassyana, rightly or wrongly, you have chosen to block me in the middle of the Arb Committee hearing, and although you have not blocked my participation in the hearing, you may not be familiar with the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me. It seems obvious that Baegis' decision to archive this ACTIVE dialogue and to do so initially without consensus seemed wrong. I urge you to re-evaluate your decision. DanaUllman^Talk 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana is now misrepresenting Scientizzle, Shoemaker, "other editors" on Potassium dichromate's talk page and himself, all on the same post. That's a remarkable feat. I think that it should be rewarded with a 1 month extension to his ban for trolling ANI, for still refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing from his part, and for still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors.

It has gotten to the point where I am so used to his assumptions of bad faith that I almost failed to notice "the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me". I warned Dana for bad faith assumptions[33] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I had meant he said there was consensus in the past:

“ As for "pushing" this study, consensus was reached to include it in the past, and it was a part of this article for several weeks. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. ”

However, that there was "consensus" for its inclusion at any time (the only time I am aware it was in the article at all was during Dana's edit warring for its conclusion, 15-19 January), let alone the "several weeks" Dana claims is something I'd need to see proof of before I believed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for archiving that particular thread were that the topic was in no way helping the article because consensus had been established, so much so, in fact, further discussion for inclusion woud be disruptive and it was starting to veer off-topic. No one else voiced disapproval of my actions. That's all I have to say about that. Baegis (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I'll need to clarify my aforementioned statement, if only Dana's sake. The comment Dana refers to (with no ellipses to obfuscate any intended meaning, but only the third paragraph presented as the other statements have nothing to do with this dispute):

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^[ref]" statement)

For the sake of argument, if one had only seen this quote by me, one might reasonably think that I support inclusion of this damned Frass et al. paper, in some form or another, in some location. However, I repeatedly made multi-faceted arguments against inclusion; in the context of these statements, that Dana assuredly read, there is no reasonable cause to state that I want "at least some reference to it" (as Dana states above). Consensus was decidedly against inclusion; I am decidedly against conclusion.

Even though I think it horribly tendentious to argue with me about the meanings of my words, for the sake of unambiguous pellucidity, and for some semblance of finality, allow me to retract the above quote and replace it with this:

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here (who eliminated all reference to its use in homeopathy), as shown by my simple inclusion of general homeopathic information with no reference to Frass et al. The provided link directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic of how & why homeopaths use Potassium dichromate. (However, I do not support the inclusion of Frass et al. in any other article, as most of my objections against inclusion are independent of the article in which the reference might appear.)

Is that clearer? Can this die now? — Scientizzle 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

un-banning Dana

For admins tempted to un-ban Dana, please notice that Dana has:

• given no signal of understanding or acknowledging why he was topic banned
• not given any signal of regretal for his actions
• actually repeated on his post the same behaviour that got him topic banned on the first place
• cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments, look at Scientizzle's complaint that he never agreed with Dana and his implicit agreement with topic ban and archiving of discussion in current form
• never mentioned the real reason of why he was banned, which was misquoting Scientizzle in a way that has a zero percentage of being cause by chance, in order to support a particulary outrageous point to support a position that he has been disruptively arguing for months.
• subtly misrepresented other editors' position and his own position, (on ways too long to discuss here, continuing a pattern of behaviour that has been analyzed to death on the arbitration case)
• claims that Vassyana has been given misinformation and implies that Vassyana would have had at least to hear from him before topic banning, and would like Vassyana to reconsider his decision. However, Dana was banned for spreading misinformation on the first place, and, you see, not that I want to assume bad faith or something, but maybe Dana intended to give misinformation to Vassyana to avoid the ban just like he is now doing on his post here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep Dana Ullman banned. Their personal beliefs about the topic are so strong that no amount of mentoring seems to be sufficient to bring their editing into compliance with minimum requirements. At the same time, Dana should be treated with kindness and respect by all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of other sysops on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm hardly an uninvolved sysop, but I think you made the right call, Vassyana. — Scientizzle 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Can we get some editors to please restore the article homeopathy to neutral point of view? The pro-Homeopathy POV pushing has elicited a negative response that may have made the article overly hostile in some ways. The article reads poorly because of undue attention to many minor points that were placed by the two factions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman - Just to be clear, are you saying the pro-homeopathy editors have annoyed the anti-homeopathy editors so much that they have made the article excessively anti-homeopathy? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • No chance of that while tempers are running high. Any re-editing of that by the uninvolved would lead to imprecations being hurled down on the head of the unfortunate editor. Which is why civility is important, as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • (now that nobody is wikilawyering about minor points there is some work in progress to, for example, reduce UK undue weight on the lead, and there is a proposed lead revision on Talk:Homeopathy/Lead) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanx for recognizing that this drama is more complex than you may have originally assumed and thanx for asking for help from other uninvolved sysops. I myself appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. I want to apologize if one of my previously cited quotes did not provide the entire quotation. I primarily inserted the part that was left out. I was not trying to "deceive" anybody (heck, I even provided the specific diff for it...I had/have nothing to hide!). To Shoemaker's credit, he quoted me correctly saying, “As for "pushing" this study, consensus was reached to include it in the past, and it was a part of this article for several weeks. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it.” My point here was not to say that we had consensus recently, but some consensus was reached previously. And even though Shoemaker is very good at providing diffs, he chose to not reference Scientizzle's remark back in January 15th, “Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text.” And later, “What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter.” [34] This statement is important because I take some pride in working to achieve compromise and to work with other editors, especially in an environment that has been extremely hostile. In fact, this environment is so hostile that some editors are doing what they can to silence/mute me. Enric Naval has asserted that I "cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments" and that Scientizzle has "never agreed with Dana." However, this diff prove Enric wrong! [35]Jehochman was kind enough to encourage that I be treated with kindness and respect, probably because I try to treat others that way.[36] However, Jehochman also recommends that I be banned for being too pro-homeopathy. I'm wondering, therefore, if other editors here should be banned for being too anti-homeopathy. Please note that there has been a tendency for some editors to try to throw as much mud at me in the hopes that some of it sticks. Shoemaker's Holiday wrote a 7,000+ word attack on me at the Arb Committee even though he has been informed that only 1,000 words is requested. Finally, because I am so darn civil (even in this hostile environment), some editors try to assert that I am POV-pushing, while tending to ignore their own POV-pushing and their stonewalling. I sincerely hope that block against me is lifted. DanaUllman^Talk 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

!Agree --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Dana often is his own worst enemy. He has just made an effective argument in favor of his topic ban, including enough red herrings to stock a seafood market. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I took a look at the Potassium Dichromate article to see what the fuss was about and was amused to find that it relates to the product HeadOn - a suitable metaphor for the repeated headache that this topic causes. :) I failed to see why Dana should be banned for his work there but noticed a tendentious and unsourced statement in the article by Mccready which I removed. My impression is that many/most editors working upon this topic seem quite fanatical and so we just have a lots of pots calling the kettle black. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... It relates to a study that Ullman wanted included. Did you look at the talk page at all? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Adding a source seems like a reasonable idea since the article is generally lacking sources and the homeopathy bit has none at all. I added a source about dermatitis just to show how it's done. You guys seem to prefer arguing to adding sources. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• cough*condescendent oversimplification of a complicated issue*cough* --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[EC]The "consensus" in mid-January to which Dana refers was rapidly overturned. On the 15th, Dana added the study. I and David D. (talk · contribs) were not convinced of its appropriateness and worked to at least decrease the blatant peacockery--discussion here. Simultaneously, discussion at Talk:Homeopathy (found here) received wider input and came down more convincingly against inclusion. Talk:Potassium dichromate#Notability of COPD shows this, too, as the study had been removed, then re-added, and further arguments came down more clearly against inclusion. Discussion here, here, here, and here (and a tangential discussion regarding the phenomenon of non-homeopathy articles having substantial pro-homeopathy information added to them began) served to solidify the consensus that inclusion was not appropriate. At the end of January, after all this, the article looked like this, with no reference to any homeopathy (and remained so until I added some back just a couple days ago). — Scientizzle 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a tad ironic that Scientizzle inserted information into this article on a homeopathic medicine called "HeadOn" but did so without ANY recent discussion.[37] Even the follow-up discussion had one editor for inclusion and one editor against it. He obviously feels OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy, but he and other editors work to keep out any serious scientific research on the subject. Please know that there are a gang of editors who have extremely antagonism to homeopathy and who work diligently to keep potentially positive research about it out of articles. Enric Naval then got belligerent saying that Dana is "still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors."[38] Enric is confused here. This is the FIRST time that I had made reference to the Lancet's editorial that had accompanied the Reilly study on asthma in 1994. If I'm wrong here, I ask that Enric provide the diffs (because he is insisting that many editors have responded. If I'm right, I hope that Enric will apologize. It should be noted that Baegis archived the discussion within hours of me quoting the Lancet's editorial, which, for the record, was a very strong statement for homeopathy: The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either anser suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It is no wonder that Baegis and other anti-homeopathy editors wanted to archive this information as soon as possible, and further, it is no wonder that they are trying so hard to silence an editor that has civilly sought to provide RS, notable information to wikipedia. I ask again to be unblocked from the topic of homeopathy. DanaUllman^Talk 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I don't care about HeadOn. You never raised any reason not to include it when I made my good-faith attempt to acheive a middle ground, and nobody has objected to it after I did add it. I basically restored the article to (an improved version of) what existed before you tried to ram the Frass et al study through. As for the claim that I "obviously" feel "OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy", I guess I probably needn't respond... — Scientizzle 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Resolved

 – user blocked for one week for recurring disruption. The 1RR probation suggested would not help as per evidence presented in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

DEFINITELY NOT RESOLVED! -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? [39] Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 1RR parole imposed on editor for a period of 6 months. henrik•talk 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mccready (talk · contribs) is exhibiting (he's done this before in other cases) very disruptive behavior that is a violation of the principle involved in 3rr violations, among other things. He keeps reinserting a large edit in the lead that has been reverted by several other editors, yet he insists on repeating the same behavior. It's definitely uncollaborative editing. The problem with the edit itself is that it is not in a format suitable for the lead, not that it's untrue. Many editors have explained this to him, yet he persists. Is there a penalty for stubborn hardheadedness? Here are the diffs (so far). Other editors' reactions can be found in the edit history of that article and the talk page:

• 18:20, April 3, 2008
• 23:23, April 7, 2008
• 18:00, April 8, 2008
• 08:02, April 11, 2008
• 03:13, April 18, 2008
• 04:27, April 19, 2008
• 01:12, April 20, 2008
• 07:16, April 21, 2008
• 09:17, April 21, 2008
• 04:33, April 23, 2008
• 06:31, April 23, 2008
• 01:38, April 25, 2008
• 02:40, April 25, 2008
• 07:21, April 26, 2008
• 08:48, April 26, 2008

Right above he is abusing this board to complain about his inability to succeed in an identical edit war on another article! Someone please stop this nonsense. A topic ban and 3rr block would be appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is that you reformat the information if you don't like it the way it is. Not waste everyone's time defending the deletion of good sources. Mccready (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one seeking inclusion, therefore it's your job to format it properly and seek inclusion in the body of the article. Then we can include mention of those otherwise good sources in the lead. That's the way we do it here. You have been told this numerous times, yet you insist on including that poorly formatted whole long list of sources in the lead, which is quite improper. Yes, I agree that acupuncture's effectiveness has been debunked numerous times and that needs to be mentioned in the lead, but only after it's documented in the body of the article. This is mostly a formatting issue, not a POV issue. That's why many editors who otherwise agree with your POV are opposing this edit warring of yours. -- Fyslee / talk 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate that Mccready uncivilly calls me a POV warrior. . . He accuses me of edit warring. . . yet they are his poor edits. . . with no consensus. . . he keeps forcing on us which I have reverted. If it were up to me. . . he should be topic banned at least. . . blocked temporarily at most.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot that I could say about Mccready's pattern of disruptive editing. Probably the main point is that the pattern is long-standing. See the one-month community ban proposed by FloNight in September 2006, here and here. Note in particular the number of pro-science, skeptical editors in that thread who say that he's exhausted the community's patience. After that ban, he disappeared for about a year, but when he returned, he quickly settled into the same disruptive pattern. That resulted in my asking an admin (User:Mastcell) to intervene. Mastcell replied:

"There is clearly a problem here. I'm thinking about the best way to address it. My instinct would be to place Mccready on 1RR on these articles to address the constant edit-warring. I've left a note for User:Davidruben to get his thoughts. I agree with you that ArbCom would probably deal with him pretty harshly given the history, and it may come to that since he appears to reject any outside attempts to address his behavior by impugning the integrity, experience, etc of the admin in question."[40]

The upshot of that intervention is that Mccready, in order to avoid a sanction, agreed to limit himself to 1RR. Since then, he's edit warred and gone beyond 1RR several times (I Ching:[41][42]; I Ching; and see last 8 diffs from Fyslee at start of thread). He also chronically ignores WP:LEAD, adding contentious, poorly-formatted and poorly-weighted material to lead sections even if the material he adds isn't covered in the article at all.

A a minimum, a re-do of the topic ban done by FloNight, for all alternative medicine and construably "pseudoscience" articles, seems in order. And I think the ban should be indefinite, since he been at this for years, seems immune to constructive criticism, and voluntary self-restraint doesn't work. Sure, Mccready has made some good edits along the way, but lots of editors are able to do that without chronic, tendentious disruption. He's dragging the project down, and the good stuff he adds doesn't warrant keeping him around, IMO. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is a very very simple dispute engineered by the usual POV warriors who want to defend acupuncture at all costs. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Simple and sweet. The true believers acknowledge my position but try to wiggle out by claiming my edits are not formatted properly or do not belong in the LEAD. If they spent as much time on addressing this perceived flaw as they do attacking me we might all be able to be proud of a better encyclopedia. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Would you stop if the lead was pruned to just the first para:

• • Acupuncture [...] practiced and taught throughout the world.

and the effectiveness stuff went into the article? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mccready: :"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben [43], Eldereft [44], Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin [45][46], Friday [47], Jefffire [48], and Arthur Rubin [49]. And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.

Did I mention the flagrant WP:NPA violations?[50] This guy is damaging the project and needs to be reined in. --Jim Butler (t) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OOooohhh dear, poor little Jim. now it's digging up all the dirt he can, not all from "scientific" editors either. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to address the simple fact that poor little jim hates to address. He knows acupuncture has not been proven effective for anything. He knows he edits to remove this fact whenever possible. He knows the straw man attempt won't wash. Get real. And since when did a hard hitting expression of disgust at POV count as NPA. And by the way it's silly to argue we should believe you since you studied a bit of chem. Linus Pauling did too but no one of substance takes his vitamin c claims seriously. Jim, your position is flawed at every level. Why don't you simply address the issue, not the man? Mccready (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on substance, since there are hundreds of studies and several systematic reviews on acu's efficacy, as well as V RS's caveating study design, and these are cited in the article. And utterly, flagrantly wrong on Wikiquette. I link to criticisms of Mccready's edits by other editors -- all, every single one of them, known as scientifically-minded -- and he replies with personal attacks, and then adds the WP:KETTLE-ish suggestion that someone had ad-hominem-attacked him. To editors familiar with his history, this is typical stuff. --Jim Butler (t) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell, place Mccready on 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's try to keep focus here. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Can we please address the issue? Mccready (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue being discussed here is actually your behavior, and more specifically whether it is productive for the encyclopedia or not. The content dispute is discussed elsewhere. henrik•talk 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, Mccready has done half the work necessary for building a quality encyclopedia - finding and describing sources. Their attitude seems to be that this shifts the burden to "the community" to include this information in an encyclopedic fashion. It is very frustrating to feel compelled to revert the otherwise good edits of an editor who refuses to take the time to present in an encyclopedic fashion this accurate and well-sourced information.

This user is not immune to reason, and has recently shown a willingness to keep good edits unrelated to this list instead of blindly reverting to a previous version. I would argue that a full pseudoscience (broadly construed) topic ban is unwarranted, but a 1RR or temporary article ban (would a month or three allow this article to move forward?) would be nice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a 1RR restriction might be a good thing to try. henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still this issue of incivility. . . even in this posts he calls us "POV warriors". . . This behavior has to improve.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quick solution to this situation. Just merge the material and add it to the appropriate section. It would be helpful if editors tried to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Please address the content dispute instead of ignoring it. Makes sense? QuackGuru 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now done Mccready's job for him by putting the material, properly formatted, in the proper section. --Jim Butler (t) 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility could be improved across the board, including from yourself ([51], [52]). henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In my time at Wikipedia I have encountered numerous problems with Mccready's editing style and general inability to collaborate effectively, in particular at chiropractic-related and acupuncture-related articles. He has already received numerous blocks and bans regarding chiropractic specifically and has engaged in another edit war at veterinary chiropractic leaving rather rude summaries. To wit:

• Jesus talk about misusing the sources!!!
• again here
• [53]

So, let's cut to the chase. Over a period of 2 years, Mccready has been officially beenblocked 4 times at chiropractic and already twice this year. This does not even take into account the canvassing[54] to get sports chiropractic article deleted (after 3 days of existence, no less) and then calling those involved wankers.

Proposal

Given Mccreadys clear attempts to disrupt wikipedia repeatedly and violating amongst other things WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and engaging in repetitive tendentious editing practices at both chiropractic and acupuncture I propose, at a minimum a topic ban at those 2 subjects. Admin MastCell's recommendations in this for a 1RR is, in my view, a band-aid solution to a chronic problem with Mccready. If he is a net contributor, then impose a topic ban and let him edit productively elsewhere, if it is deemed he is a net-liability, (which I perceive him to be) then a indef block or extended ban is warranted. I have merely presented but a fraction of the evidence that I have accumulated, if more diffs are wanted to show a lengthy history of disruption at chiropractic (and related articles) I can provide them. I think the regular editors at Acupuncture could very well do the same if inclined. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I too think a 1RR is too easy, since that is basically what he's doing most of the time anyway. He's carefully flying under the 3RR radar by not making too many reverts each day, but he still returns to the same door that has been closed by many and tries to open it again. That's just stupid (truly uncivil and more accurate terms could be chosen, but I'll refrain..;-) He should be taking the advice he's been given, reformatting his good references, and then trying to get them included in the body of the article in an appropriate section. Then, instead of getting reverted and ending up here, he'd be getting support from numerous editors, myself included. He's simply uncollaborative and acting like a jerk. A topic ban would be more effective, since other measures, including bans and blocks, have been tried without success. He seems incapable of learning, but I'll leave the DSM-IV diagnosis to the MDs. While Einstein wasn't an MD, he did say that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Nuff said. -- Fyslee / talk 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Henrik's gentle nudge is substantially identical to many others that admins have left on Mccready's talk page; he never changes. And contrary to Henrik's comments, I don't see any consensus at all that 1RR is better than a topic ban. I think it's significant that the editors urging leniency are those with the least experience with Mccready. The fact is that he's been a disruptive editor since 2006, has been repeatedly sanctioned, and doesn't change.

I doubt 1RR will work very well, since he's been under voluntary 1RR since 11 February, and has violated both the letter and spirit of it many times. Just look at the list Fyslee compiled above. Revert, revert, revert, revert. Sometimes within the letter of 1RR, but never the spirit, which is to seek consensus on talk pages. 1RR won't do anything to address the longstanding, intractable problems with WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS (I'm not even going to mention WP:CIVIL, because that's coming to be seen as a sign of weakness when arguing about science, although it's certainly key.)

I simply don't understand the reluctance to topic-ban this editor. Read his talk page and its archives. Look at his block log. He's been sporadically disrupting the project since 2006, and has done more harm than good to the goal of producing a better encyclopedia. I've seen editors get community banned at AN/I for less. What on earth is wrong with a topic ban? --Jim Butler (t) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for 1RR

Henrik left this comment on Mccready's talk page:

• "After the discussion here, it seems that the consensus is that imposing a 1RR would be best, rather than a topic ban or other remedy...."

He replied:

• "I don't agree that such a consensus emerged...."

I agree with Mccready. There was no such consensus, on the contrary! A 1RR changes nothing at all and will not change his behavior. He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole. -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? [55]. Then you call me crazy? You who claim to agree with my edits yet revert them. Something crazy there? Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee wrote: "He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole." -- Or not:

• 00:22, 28 April 2008: changes lead (ignoring discussion that he can't be bothered to read), and restores the material he's been edit-warring over, despite my having added and formatted it earlier today.
• 01:49, 28 April 2008: Following my revert of his edit for reasons above, he goes to 2RR. I didn't try to "trap" him into this. His edit really was bad: poorly formatted, redundant, and counter to concerns raised on discussion.

So, Mccready says, and then demonstrates, that he'll abide by 1RR except when he won't. Great, so we have a good idea how well that's going to work.

I have only one question: Should we waste the ArbCom's time by bringing a case whose outcome we can all predict, just because a couple admins are too timid (a/o simply unfamiliar with the history) to topic-ban this editor? --Jim Butler (t) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: 02:59, 28 April 2008: WHEE! 3RR! --Jim Butler (t) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Repairing your sloppy work hardly counts to 3RR[56]. You said you had fixed this but (conveniently?) did not. This case is a simple matter of an acupuncturist doing everything he can to put a positive slant on the acupuncture article despite overwhelming evidence. Even his use of his favourite source, Ernst is biased. He will use every trick in the wikipedia arsenal to get his way. Including claiming the talk page agrees with him when it does not. The complaint is that I have not had time until the last few days to FORMAT data in the approved style. Hardly a hanging offence but one I will try to improve on. No one has said the data is wrong. Indeed I have been congratulated for my efforts in gathering it, yet Butler the POV acupuncturist likes to attack a good editor who he disagrees with. His childish WHEE above and his childish placement of a trout on my talkpage show the mentality of the man.Mccready (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that this edit counted toward 3RR, because it didn't. I said that these three did, because they did: 00:22, 28 April 2008, 01:49, 28 April 2008, 02:59, 28 April 2008.

And yes, you're to be congratulated for finding those Cochrane reviews for acupuncture. Cutting and pasting is challenging work; it can take hours.

I am not the problem here, Mccready -- you are. I'm not perfect, but I know my subject areas, work well with other editors, annoy very few people, and don't get blocked. --Jim Butler (t) 03:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Now we have the Butler defn of 3RR? I don't think so. The community can judge who is making the maximum effort to slant the article in a POVish fashion. Like everyone has said, my research is good. You try to remove all reference to it in the LEAD and then you claim consensus? Give me a break. Mccready (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." The three edits I cited qualify [57], [58], [59]. Your mainspace edits and your talk page comment make your contempt for the 1RR probation clear enough. --Jim Butler (t) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

---

There is enough evidence here for a week-long block for disruptive editing. User blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the users response here, I have no objections. I attempted to give him one last chance, but he did not respond in a way that made me believe he intended to reform. henrik•talk 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Mccready (talk · contribs) should be given a topic ban on all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for no less than six months. This is a massive ongoing issue. His block log and recent actions make it clear that he simply needs to avoid those topics. Despite multiple blocks, several people trying to explain the principles of the place, and many attempts to invite him to conversation, he is still acting in a completely unacceptable fashion. I would also suggest that he be placed under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. The probation should require him to explain reverts on the article talk page and warn him against further disruption such as ignoring consensus and edit warring. Enforce the probation with blocks or an expanded topic ban to include the broader category of the probation (compared to the initial ban). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) See here for thoughts generated by recent and previous cases.

• Support such topic ban, enforcing the probation with escalating blocks up to one year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Object to such a severe ban. QuackGuru 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Without a topic ban, this user will likely self-destruct. It is quite likely that any further disruption will result in a one month block, and escalate from there onwards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you oppose the ban? Would you also please explain why you feel it is severe? Vassyana (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment this user has had six blocks in the last three months and is still edit warring and reverting. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support for sure, but make it indefinite. Long overdue. Only Mccready's periodic extended wikibreaks have prevented an outright ban before now, imo. --Jim Butler (t) 04:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support such a topic ban. There is abundant evidence that less has never worked and that he seems unable to learn. Einstein was right (see my comment above). -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have seen enough attacks against me here. Byebye. QuackGuru 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. Jim Butler quickly and politely redacted his comment upon my request.[60][61][62] I implored QuackGuru to explain his opposition and redact this comment.[63][64] His response indicates that he considers my requests to be harassment that made the situation worse.[65][66][67] Vassyana (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support As one having to deal with this editor since 2006, I'd support a community ban. His "my way or the highway" attitude even spreads to seemingly benign articles like bicycle.--Hughgr (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support He has demonstrated more than enough times that he is unable to collaborate and uses editing tactics which damage the project, and drives away good editors. The topic ban is warranted and is justified by both the chronicity (it's been since 06) and the recidivism that has taken place since then with blocks have no effect. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, simply because this is a matter that should result first in a user RfC. I'm also not too keen on the discussion happening primarily with administrators, instead of the community at large. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The arguments themselves, even if just from admins, is fairly sound, so consider my position a weak oppose. I know these discussions have become somewhat common on ANI, but it would still be a better idea to take the user-RfC step, and place the discussion in an area where all users would feel comfortable in commenting on. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe both users have been the subjects of RfCs. I'll let someone else dig them up, since I have to run. -- Fyslee / talk 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Considering that this user has been blocked several times and been the subject of several noticeboard discussions, I believe that we are far beyond the point of a user RfC. (This goes back over two years. See here and here for examples. There was an RfC around that time as well, with well-respected editors endorsing the view that he was disruptive.) The purpose of such RfCs is to make clear to the editor the desires of the community. Mccready is already well-aware of the community's wishes in regards to his behavior and editing patterns. Vassyana (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The block log isn't that "impressive" when you give it some context, but since there has been an RfC, great, I have no reason to oppose this. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This topic ban is a step towards resolving the drama over this article. MBisanz ^talk 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I just encountered him for the first time at Sciatica where he edited in an unnecessarily combative way, removing references to acupuncture and chiropractic which were trivial to cite to serious journals. Since he must know a lot about this subject by now, his edit seems disruptive. His general behaviour seems so blatantly bad that I half-suspect that this is a black-op by the other side. Either way, he should be restrained. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I have looked at his edits to Bicycle and, while they show some stubbornness, they seem more reasonable. An editor with strong views should be encouraged to spread himself rather than getting hung up over particular issues. That way, we get the benefit of his boldness without the aggravation of the warring. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to argue with Vassyana's rationale; I think this editor has had more chances than we give many others, and is still exhibiting the same counterproductive and uncollaborative behavior. I think a 6-month topic ban is reasonable, with the understanding that it's a last step before an indefinite block if the same old behaviors recur at the ban's expiration. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)c

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

• Comment To be fair to Mccready, he's just hot-blooded and wears his emotions on his sleeve (I know where he comes from). But, I would be remiss if I did not address a similar disruptive pattern amongst Chiropractic that dates back to Mccready as well. User:QuackGuru deserves a similar investigastion. Looking at his block log, you'll see similar stuff to Mccready. I count 8 in less than a year, most with Chiropractic. He's engaged in long-standing disruptive practices now, but under a civil POV push. I believe that QuackGuru also merits such a topic ban and think we should open the floor for such discussion. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support a similar investigation and fate for QuackGuru. -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• how can you support a similar fate without the afforementioned investigation? Viridae^Talk 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously only if an investigation resulted in findings that deserved such a fate. That should be obvious. -- Fyslee / talk 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support an investigation into QG. QuackGuru demonstrates neither the expertise, nor the sensitivity needed to obtain NPOV in Chiropractic and related articles. He is been tendentiously pushing an agenda that includes disruption, stonewalling, wikilawyering, edit warring, failing to meet inclusion standards as per WP:MEDRS (or the CAM equivalent). I could also throw in tons of baiting as seen here. Diffs into any formal investigation will be provided. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to vote on it, you can just keep talking... -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned's exactly right. There's no need to !vote on an investigation. Provide some evidence and pointers. I'm sure the sysops and community will review and discuss the situation. Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment* QG seems to have considerably fewer problems than McCready. I think it would be unwise to conflate the two cases. I think Cortico shouldn't throw rocks from his glasshouse, considering his blocklog and previous history. An editor should be judged by their current actions. Jefffire (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Jefffire, however, my argument in fact that QG has been even more disruptive than Mccready, albeit in a civil fashion. He has also repeatedly violated the terms of of Feb 08 block which imposed a strict 1RR. His edit warring at Chiropractic, Sports Chiropractic and particularly at Veterinary chiropractic suggests that he does not regard the terms of his probation. Given he has 8 blocks on chiropractic-topics in the last year, this warrants further attention. As I am at work I cannot provide the diffs just yet, but when I have the time, later on this evening, I am confident that I will present a case that will justify a full topic ban. QG has crossed the line from rational skeptic into some kind of unhealthy fixation with chiropractic which has made editing there a private hell for me, for the last 3 months, but do many others over the past year. So, to summarize, indeed editors should be judged by their current actions and I will provide current diffs on QG tendiously editing, disrupting chiropractic-related articles, violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, using WP:COATRACK strategies, ignoring completely WP:MEDRS, dodging concerns via WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using WP:BAIT tactics all while edit warring under probation. It's an open and shut case and QG shouldn't have persisted with the same behaviours and editing tactics which got him in trouble in the first place. More tonight. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Jefffire that QuackGuru is not in the same league as Mccready. I've observed disruption and edit-warring from QG in the past (i.e., a few months ago), but not lately; however, that may be a simple artifact of my editing less. An RfC may be indicated depending on his more recent conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that QG exhibits two or three uncivil behavioral traits which either need improvement or other remedies need to be instituted. Again, these are just my opinions so if someone disagrees, please feel free to discuss. 1) Similar to McCready, QuackGuru keeps inserting controversial edits into article-space despite ongoing discussions and a clear lack of consensus. I understand his frustration at times, but he seems to quick to make these kinds of edits. He will keep doing it, trying to see if they will stick. 9 times out of 10 they don't. Still he will be back the next day and try again. 2) He can be extremely snotty. This is tough because it is incivility in disguise. A lot of times, he hides these snippy remarks in sarcasm or in edit summaries. I guarantee you that anyone who has every been on his bad side can attest to this. 3) He doesn't take criticism well. Just look at his user talk page history. He is quick to delete any criticisms (usually followed by a snotty remark or accusation). I even "fear" what retribution he will have on me for posting this (part of me is quite sure that this be turned into an attack on me). It is this inability to take criticism constructively which makes me wonder if options such as an RFC/U would be beneficial at all. 4) He can be quite often completely unreasonable. It is irrational behavior like this which even makes users on his side of the argument - such as Fyslee - wish he would just go away. (Why? Because he weakens their position and disrupts any consensual headway the article is making.) All in all, I don't think a recidivist such as QuackGuru can improve. However, I don't see the harm in at least experimenting by giving him a temporary topic ban and seeing how this affects his behavior. Otherwise, I think QuackGuru is speeding headlong toward an indef block. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment absurd witchhunts being perpetrated by Chiropractic true-believers and their erstwhile political allies. QuackGuru should be commended for fighting against the unwarranted promotion of chiropractic. I would like to see an investigation into the activities of User:CorticoSpinal and User:Levine2112 who both, in my estimation, deserve to be kicked off Wikipedia immediately for using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world. We don't need people who wear these preposterous ideas on their sleeves making a headache for the sane non-"true believers" here on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This statement typifies the ignorance of and the types of straw man arguments used to discredit complementary providers. First, chiropractic medicine, in case you haven't noticed, is primarily used to treat neuromusculoskeletal disorders (90%). That is conditions involving the muscles, nerves and joints. You, and other skeptics, and hung up on whether or not manipulation is effective in certain visceral conditions (the jury is still out, Hawk et al. are doing the best research in this area presently). Anyways, you're insinuations are completely unfounded and I reject them completely. You put words in my mouth ("using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world") which is a personal attack and I hope you retract it. It's not a question of believing; it's a question of understanding the science behind manual therapy, which many in orthodox medicine do not. I recommend you look at this text and brush up on the last 25 years or so of research. Otherwise, you are using dated, invalid and misleading comments that can easily be debunked. Cheers. 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as per Science Apologist. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have edited a few articles that QuackGuru edits, and have found him overall to be violating WP:MEDRS, ignoring WP:CON and WP:NPOV. It is these sort of tactics that drive editors away from the project. DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent diff showing QuackGuru ignoring RS, MEDRS, and CON. [68]. The consensus on the article talk page was that this source was not reliable. DigitalC (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Is QG disruptive on chiropractic-related pages and did he explicitly and REPEATEDLY break the terms of his probations of 1RR? Definitely. It's happened several times as well:

Here is an example of a civil POV push with QGs "scientific investigation" of chiropractic which he pushed despite the majority of editors at Chiropractic feeling it was substandard and needed to be reworked for inclusion. He ignored consensus and attempted to insert it repeatedly, in a disruptive move:

1. 17:44, March 18/08

19:37, March 31/08 22:03, March 31/08

Ignoring the ongoing talk which several editors raised POV tone and validity concerns, QG goes ahead:

1. April 6/08
2. April 7/08
3. April 8/08 Notice how there were 3 separate editors who reminded QG that this was discussion was ongoing and to please wait until the discussion was finished prior to inserting it. He ignored them 3 times, one day after the next. It's this type of tendentious and disruptive editing which has resulted in many edit wars at Chiropractic. QG is a catalyst in most.

It has moved to the Veterinary chiropractic article as of late. A majority of editors there felt that QG up to his old tricks with more disruption beginning with adding and renaming a section of the article that had consensus from a majority of editors. The intent, as always is clear: to maximize controversy and drum up the emotions hoping someone (like me in the past) loses their cool. WP:BAIT for sure. Here's recent examples:

1. Effectiveness
2. Effectiveness again 02:38, April 19/08
3. 06:13, April 19/08. This is despite ignoring the ongoing conversation at Talk which was asking QG to please not edit war over the section title which he is also POV pushing at chiropractic. Did this changes thingss?
4. 08:50, April 19/08
5. 22:15, April 21/08. Note more wikilawyering and ignoring the ongoing discussion and majority consensus on the talk page.
6. 19:26 April 26/08. Again ignoring the will of the majority of the editors, QG continues a civil POV push that is clearly disruptive by now. Still not done, apparently. It continues again, despite DigitalC requesting a temporary stoppage so he can pursue a RfC.

Back to chiropractic, on April 18/08: Removing my comments from Talk pages and threatening me with WP:HARASS and WPL:BLOCK. He reverted my comments 3x in a matter of minutes which prevented me from continuing an important conversation

17:52 April 18/08 17:55 April 18/08 He was warned not to do so by Admin Swatjester here and, as per typical QG fashion, he erases his discussion page to remove any evidence of wrong doing. Here is is trying to play admin Vassyana against admin Swatjester. These tactics have regularly been used against myself and other editors at chiropractic related pages.

He also regularly nominates chiropractic-related articles for deletion in more attempts to disrupt, subvert and obstruct productive editing and contributions. Since Feb 08, he has nominated the following articles for deletion

1. [69] This is 2 days after he proposed to keep the article and include in the main chiropractic article. Although it is circumstancial evidence, it is plausible that it was from a WP:CANVASSING attempt from Mccready, diffs which can be found on the AfD sports chiropractic page. Note he suddenly wants to delete the vet chiro article which he has been "contributing" to since day 1. Odd.[70]

So, that was a quick one off, I can dig much deeper and get other users, admins diffs who have also questioned the tactics of QG and his disruptive practices at chiropractic. To be clear, I am not against rational chiropractic skeptics. I can deal with scientific skepticism, but this goes beyond. It make editing here completely difficult and needlessly aggravates the situation with edits wars, civil POV pushes, canvassing and general disruption. His contributions to chiropractic has been nominal at best and his continued presence has driven away editors, and he has personally been on my case in some form, since day 1. This isn't a case of sour grapes, its a case a chronic recividism with editing practices which harms the integrity of the project. I have more if needed, but I await commentary first. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Review indef block of User:כתר

כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

My apologies for bringing up a rather stale issue, but it's been nagging away at me. This user was blocked indefinitely on 2008-04-20 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for reason "Adieu". The only warning given was for 3RR. This user has requested unblocking. In the ensuing discussion, the block was explained as because "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Is it now our practice to block users indefinitely for sockpuppetry with evidence of this type? Isn't that what WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are for?

I asked the blocking admin to escalate this issue, but the conversation petered out, which is why I'm bringing it here. I'm not very experienced at tracking down sockpuppets, but it seems to me that we'll be biting newcomers left, right and centre if we continue on this path. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that this user's contributions (mostly asking why he's being accused of being a sockpuppet) are high quality, nor that Moreschi is acting in bad faith.

On another note, I see that this user also requested unblock on the unblock-en-l list (password protected), but received no reply, which is unusual.

So, am I worrying about nothing? Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look strange. See here. I don't think Future Perfect, Moreschi or Max Sem (see here) have explained themselves well or provided sufficient evidence. If people are pushing inappropriate content, but you can't pin down who it is, then concentrate on improving the content rather than lashing out at shadows. Future Perfect also seems to have lost his cool in response to another editor in a similar matter. See here ("are you still here? Go rant somewhere else") and here ("This is my user talk page, please. When people tell you to keep off their talkpages, you better keep off.") in response to another editor that Moreschi blocked for 100 hours for "disruptive editing". I'm also unclear here as to why Moreschi blocked for 100 hours in one case, and indefinite in the other case. I think the reason is sockpuppetry, but that seems unproven here. I suggest Moreschi and others proceced with caution. If their actions are causing collateral damage, that won't be good for the future viability of the Macedonian discretionary sanctions. Especially, blocking indefinitely users who have not edited any articles but instead have only been contributing on talk pages, is not a good road to go down. The block log reason of "Adieu" is grossly inappropriate, as is "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Did Moreschi and others learn nothing from the MatthewHoffman arbitration case? Moreschi in that case said: "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet.." [71]. I said in my statement in that case: "some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor." The conclusion of the arbitrators can be seen here. Note also that a previous indef by Moreschi was later overturned for mentoring. See here. It may turn out that DanaUllman doesn't have a future here (see the ongoing arbitration case), but can Moreschi honestly say that his actions in extending the 24 block to indefinite really helped? Moreschi has a history of blocking on the basis of what he thinks is "obvious" and of extending blocks placed by others. Neither of these actions are helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking not as an admin here but as the editor affected in this case, you guys can do what you like, unblock that account if you want to take the responsibility for watching him afterwards. But I remain convinced this account was just one in a series of throwaway sockpuppets that have been showing up on a regular basis lately, with no other purpose than to harass me, usually trying to prompt some other Greek users to start edit-warring against some edits of mine. It's always the same pattern, always evidently the same person or a small coordinated group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The admin who did the blocking is responsible for any damage the blocking causes. When someone unblocks, the editor is usually warned about their future conduct (or they are given an apology for the block), and what then happens is that we have a collective responsibility to review any future problematic acts by that editor. There is no reason at all for an admin to "watch" those he unblocks (that is called "probation", and should not be handed out unilaterally by admins). I trust my fellow editors and admins to take appropriate action in the future, and I don't think immediate blocking and indefinite blocking is helpful in cases like this, especially not with spurious claims of sockpuppetry floating around. In other words, an unblock and apology, followed later by a block if there are later problems, doesn't mean anyone was "right" or "wrong" in the first case. You can't retrospectively justify actions like that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as you cannot speedy delete for something being a copyvio , unless you know of what it is a copy, you cannot block for being a puppet unless you know of who. Without even saying who it's suspected of being, this makes no sense at all. If there';s no explanation, I am willing to unblock. DGG (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Had my block of DanaUllman stood, the encyclopaedia would have been saved months of tendentious time-wasting. Fact.

Secondly, this chap gave Fut. Perf {{uw-delete}} on something like his 5th edit in a clear attempt to harass and provoke. That is not the behaviour of a newbie or even a lurker. WP:BITE does not apply. Harassment-only SPAs get blocked, particularly if they self-evidently have prior experience (which means they should know better). No debate to be had here, unless there's collective sanity-abandonment in progress. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spurious accusations of sockpuppetry? Fourth fucking edit! He clearly has prior history - even if that is good history, bad-hand disruptive socks get blocked as well. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"even if that is good history" - you don't sound quite sure any more. If you had a checkuser case for sockpuppetry, I would support an indefinite block. In this case, why not reduce the block to time served for "disruption", withdraw the sockpuppet allegations, assume good faith that this is the user's first account following anonymous editing, and give the user a chance to edit constructively and prove you wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This is abusive sockpuppetry: he created an account purely to troll and harass an excellent administrator against whom he had a grudge: so much is self-evident. AGF is not a suicide pact: he has demonstrated clear bad faith by his harassment. Hell, has he even apologised? Where's the case for clemency? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it is a fine line to draw sometimes, but the presumption here is clearly on you to make a case for sockpuppetry. You will surely admit that you are not always right, and you can see others besides me disagree with you, so why not swallow your pride and allow an unblock and see how this goes. Future Perfect has said he will not stand in the way of an unblock. We might all learn something here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cacharoth, I've re-examined [72] and I am not longer willing to unblock. --this is taunting the admin involved, and as I read it, admitting he is a sock. I would have given a clearer block summary though, such as "disruption-only editor" which I think meets the situation. DGG (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both counts - this is clearly an abusive sock but it would be helpful for the rest of us if the block summary in such cases could make this clear. Incidentally, what are the characters in the user name? I don't recognise the script. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew, I think. Seems to be the Hebrew word for "crown" or somesuch. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's the Hebrew word for crown. Enigma ^message 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", is ambigious. It could be interpreted as an admission of sockpuppetry, but it could also be sarcastic. For example, if I (Carcharoth) said "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", I would hope that Moreschi would recognise I was being sarcastic, and would not block me and then justify the block with some "obvious" comment. It is purely the newness of the account here, and the transition from IP to account makes the account look more experienced than it is, that sets off red flags in some people. I think ktr was being sarcastic, which wasn't the best idea, but still not enough to justify an indefinite block. Remember, only 26 edits, of which 15 were after the unblock, and none to article space. Look at the 11 edits before the block - only 8 of these are substantive edits. ktr also recognises that Special:Contributions/85.75.93.132 are his edits (at least for this time period), so combining the two we get 18 substantive edits in the following sequence:

• requesting sources
• reverting and removing contested source
• goes to talk page
• takes part in talk page debate
• initiates complaint over sock accusation
• ask Future Perfect again about sock accusation
• personal attack on Future Perfect on his talk page
• reverting talk page removal
• vandalism warning
• explaining a Greek phrase used on a talk page and another one used in an edit summary
• another talk page revert, plus adding vandalism warning
• upbraids Future Perfect's behaviour
• talk page revert
• vandalism warning
• questions 3RR warning
• revert with smiley in edit summary
• personal attack on Future Perfect
• contests sock accusation again and suggests Future Perfect is being paranoid

What, among that lot, justifies an indefinite block for ktr, when compared to the 100-hour block for User:Elampon? I stand by my assertion that Future Perfect and Moreschi have over-reacted here. This looks to me like a standard case of a new account being created after a short period of IP editing, and the new account jumping into a disputed area - not the best idea, but unsurprisingly this is something done by both trolls and genuine new editors - there is no way to reliably distinguish the two, and those most involved will lose perspective and be unable to tell the two apart. Future Perfect seems to have lost it at the point here, where he said "In fact, sock, now that I re-read the two sources [...] But, sock, what happened [...] And, for any reader of average intelligence, sock, that of course [...] Other than that, the sources are sound, sock." It is unhelpful in the extreme to mix up genuine explanations with perjorative sock accusations. It also seems that Future Perfect said something in Greek here - at the very least, Future Perfect should be asked not to use Greek edit summaries, regardless of what he actually said, and certainly not if what he said was offensive. A block of some sorted was probably justified for ktr. The accusation of sockpuppetry and the indefinite length of the block was not. Moreschi, I ask you again, will you shorten the block and retract your accusation of sockpuppetry? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: [73]: This guy has got everything he wanted, he got the attention he wanted, he got me annoyed, he got me in a bit of trouble, now he's happily off, pondering "future similar incidents (which [he is] sure will happen)". Great. If anybody still thinks this was a legitimate user, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note asking ktr to stop commenting in that way on the ANI thread from his talk page - it is only aggravating things. OK, now I've done that, I'll go back to Future Perfect. Future Perfect, please don't use the response by a currently blocked user (they are sometimes unhappy about being blocked, funny that) as an excuse to avoid the questions I'm asking you. I think the questions are reasonable, and I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks, and switching to accusations of sockpuppetry in Greek language edit summaries, is acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that this user shares the same IP range with sockpuppets Spiros 13 (talk · contribs), Bolti7 (talk · contribs), and Ntou7 (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See my question below. Is this based on you running a checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that in some cases checkusers will decline to even look if WP:DUCK applies. I support the block by Fut Perf as explained by Moreschi, it does indeed seem reasonable. I think WP:BURO applies here. Orderinchaos 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I said I'd drop this, but just noticed this error of fact here. It was a block by Moreschi, not Future Perfect. I'm dropping this now, and asking someone else to review. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect and Greek edit summaries

Making sure this doesn't get lost above. I haven't looked further than the following two edits by Future Perfect, and one previous one nearby on a talk page, but could others review the edits please?

• mixes up sock accusations and content editing explanations (unhelpful taunting, full discussion here)
• Greek edit summary (it has been claimed this means "get out of the shanty, sock")

Looking back further, it seems this is not the only time that Future Perfect's use of Greek has caused problems. See here: "That's always the danger when you try to say something funny in a foreign language; you can never know if it really means what you think it means. I'm glad to hear I wasn't that far off. Seems those Kypatzides taught me correctly after all... ;-)" - seriously, when editing in this area, using Greek when you are not a native speaker, is not going to help if it causes misunderstandings. Did the arbitration case say anything about this? Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the content carefully. The instance that you said "caused problems" was a harmless slang expression meaning "damnit" (in its wide-spread present day colloquial usage) and nothing else. Another Greek user had just confirmed that it meant exactly what I intended. (And that user, Xenovatis, has no reasons to defend me out of friendship or anything.) The fact that the two anons/socks were trying to give that a spin as if I had seriously insulted them is in itself proof of bad faith on their part.

Yes, the other one means "get out, sock". I have little to add to that, it gets the message across.

I will speak with Greek users in Greek in whatever way I see fit. Don't bother trying to give me advice about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read the context. I still wanted clarification. I do object to people talking to each other in a language I can't understand, when one of them could provide a translation in English at the same time. What is the general policy/guideline for this sort of thing? I would also appreciate input from other people as well. Do you (Future Perfect) object to that? And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks? Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of us have better things to do than trumping up controversy over such a self-evidently trivial issue. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the trivial issue? I see that the issue of suspected sockpuppetry is non-trivial enough for you to investigate (above), so you can't mean that. Or do you mean the Greek in the edit summaries? Or the taunting of someone Future Perfect thought was a sock puppet, which only served to inflame things? Two simple questions: would you act this way (repeating calling someone a sock), and do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In a quite similar case, I remember I had to justify an indefinite block I made earlier this year where all reviewing admins and participants agreed with but I don't remember leaving a Japanese edit summary. Apart from 'Arigato gozaimashita' and names of places, people, etc., i'd not use Japanese for anything in the project. Probably I could have helped fix the Nihongo script on the Wikipedia logo instead of prompting unnecessary Q & A's. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made your point that you consider Future Perfect's reaction poor. You are free to do so. However, at some point (which seems already passed), your dogged pursuit of the matter—going so far as to make an issue out of the use of Greek in an edit summary as if that is some monstrous deed—has become disproportionate to the actual crimes presented. We don't need self-important commentators inserting themselves and insensitively causing more distress to someone who is already feeling harassed, when it looks like you are trying to make a controversy where there is really very little substance. Dmcdevit·t 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But people clamming up and walking away is not exactly ideal either. I will note that in cases where people acknowledge what I say, or engage with what I am saying (instead of being defensive, or skirting the issue, or diverting attention elsewhere) I am very quick to drop things and move on. But equally, it shouldn't be the case that a defensive reaction causes people to walk away and not bother looking into things. Indefinite blocks are serious stuff. If I walk away now, where does that leave ktr? I asked ktr to quieten down, and I am waiting for Moreschi to respond here. Several people raised concerns that this might not be sockpuppetry - if it turns out it is sockpuppetry, that still doesn't justify blocking on suspicions alone. And can I be clear here, have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't gone on a fishing expedition. I checked a user for whom there was a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for it, since there was disagreement. To be honest, as an outside reader just coming to this discussion, I don't think you are understanding me. Your comments here are bordering on uncivil. It's not just your pursuit of the matter, but the manner in which you are doing it. Some editors are just the nicest uncivil people you've ever met; they can make accusations and assumptions of bad faith, but couch them in questions and righteous quests for Justice, and rarely get called out, all while dampening the community spirit. You are being one of those people right now.

You could have asked me if I had used CheckUser, but instead you decided to use a loaded question like "have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser?" You also asked earlier "do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)?" "And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks?" "I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks is acceptable?". Do you think making accusations in the form of loaded questions—such that, since you have already assumed the wrongdoing in the question, the only answers are "yes, I was taunting" or "no, taunting is acceptable;" "yes, I was fishing" or "no, I didn;t run a checkuser"—is acceptable behavior. (Yes, that was irony). I don't. Dmcdevit·t 10:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing left to see here. Can we move on guys? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing the bit below. Is there a suitable place to discuss the wider issues of getting the balance right between supporting each other as admins and also calling each other out when things go wrong? This is a serious issue, and one that needs to be fully discussed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries Carcharoth. I believe in your effort in discussing legitimate concerns. Of course there are plenty of suitable places to discuss this in a collegial and friendly atmosphere. We can go to the AN instead or else my user talk page is open for such discussions, wikipedia or arbcom mailing list, wikback.com, maybe the new forum created to discuss ways on how to deal with cultural and ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia, personal e-mails to people who may help, etc... The thing is that you are half-right -same as Future Perfect but arguing and repeating oneself in lenghty discussions makes one more wrong than the other. We seek two rights and we won't be interested in two half-rights/wrongs. Please feel free to discuss your concerns with me on my talk. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Was finishing off an article. Thanks for the suggestions for places to discuss this. If Dmcdevit doesn't see my response below before it is archived, I'll take my concerns to his talk page. One thing I should do, sometimes, is use user talk pages more often (I do nearly always, I hope, do this before initiating any thread here, but I mean here in terms of following up loose ends). It is surprising how often people respond differently on their talk pages compared to a venue like this. One final thing, this shouldn't be about me or Future Perfect, and I apologise if I dragged this off-topic, but about ktr and Moreschi. My view of sockpuppet blocking is that it is better to err on the side of caution. Better to let a few through and block them later, rather than block too many and cause collateral damage when getting it wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the checkuser fishing comment. I would appreciate a fuller checkuser analysis, as your current analysis doesn't seem to say very much at the moment. I also apologise for being somehat aggressive here, but as I said above, if people engage and talk to me, like you are doing, then things generally turn out fine. It is when people get upset and walk away, or take things personally, or come out with posts like this, that things fall apart. Should I have to feel that I can't raise points or ask difficult questions (difficult for the person answering them, that is)? It sometimes feels like that when people get defensive around me. I might ask hard and critical questions, but I think that is sometimes needed around here. Anyway, if you want an example of me calming an incident, have a look at this. Looking further back, I once severely criticised Guy over his blocking of a group of academics over the Oxford Round Table conference article. Guy was good enough to recognise straightaway that he was wrong, and he apologised. When I'm shown to be wrong, I apologise. Chilling effects work both ways, and a balance needs to be struck between supporting each other as admins, and calling each other out when things go wrong. Read through the entire screen here, and then tell me whether you still think that I should pull back and change the way I do things. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocking

I think we are dealing with a problem of semantics. If an account is blocked for sock puppetry, there really should be a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report. There have been cases where lack of such a report has been a real hinderance to me when I've been tracking down a problem user who has returned with new socks, but can't find any evidence about those that have been blocked before. Only if socks are exceedingly obvious and the puppetmaster is known, can the reports be skipped, in my humble opinion.

In this case, a "new" user appears and starts disrupting like an experienced troll. Moreschi, next time the block reason could be "disruption-only account" and you could leave a few diffs on their talk page after the block notice. There's no need to identify the puppetmaster if an account acts like a giant dick. They can be blocked for their own behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/troll disruption problem at child pornography?

Maybe page protection would de-magnetize the article for a while.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Onevictim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brian_ribbon

Brian ribbon may be a reincarnation of indef blocked pro pedophile activist user User:BLueRibbon, another user called User:Daniel Lièvre wa sindef blocked this morning and may be causing disruption. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

These are on proxies, but are obviously the same person (share at least one proxy in the same time frame), as well as Thegreatchildpornhoax (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is "Cocktailexpert" on a proxy also, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cocktailexpert -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And hopefully there is no proxy relationship between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AnotherSolipsist and Onevictim, Brian_ribbon, Cocktailexpert, and/or Thegreatchildpornhoax...

-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A third SPA/sock created at the same time as the other two

• Cocktailexpert (talk · contribs · logs · block log) -

This user was created within around 10 minutes of the two now-blocked users reported in this same section just above. The two other users are:

• Onevictim (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Brian_ribbon (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

The user has disguised at least three controversial edits today with misleading edit summaries. The first is:

(deleted unsourced statements and a pro-pedo weasel word)

whereas... the actual edit at this diff appears to support the opposite by removing this phrase from the referenced text:

the production of it involves the abuse and exploitation of children,

Then in this diff, the user described another edit as follows:

(Moved paragraph. Removed the word "mere" and added the word "often". Added {{fact}} tag. Unpublished studies are not reliable or trustworthy; they are usually not published due to poor methodology)

however... the edit does not match the summary: in addition to moving one paragraph, the user deleted a full paragraph and did not mention that in the edit summary, making it less likely that the edit would be analyzed in detail.

Another misleading edit summary: 01:19, 28 April 2008:

(re-organisation)

however... the edit actually changed a footnoted statement directly attributed to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, from this: "Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing business segments on the internet", to this:

The NCMEC, who receive funding to pursue people who commit offences against children, have stated that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing business segments on the internet.

Now,with all the edits, the content issue can be argued separately (it's clearly a POV-push, but that's not the purpose of this report and would be handled elsewhere.)

User:Cocktailexpert is the third new account created today within a ten minute period along with the two blocked users reported above, and is editing the same hot-button topic with matching agenda and disruptive approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Per this thread at WP:AN; paedophile related discussion should be refactored to ArbCom in every instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DavidPaulHamilton

DavidPaulHamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made few edits, almost all of them to a policy page, including many reversions, a 3RR violation and straw poll votes. Could somebody wash the socks, please. CharlesFinnegan (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting this CharlesFinnegan account has been active for less than four hours, and already reported User:DavidPaulHamilton to WP:3RR. Redrocket (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CharlesFinnegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef. Nakon 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CharlesFinnegan is an obvious sock. Fnagaton 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What about DavidPaulHamilton who is an obvious sockpuppet of Fnagaton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knocklittle (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, the socks just keep walking in to announce themselves, don't they? That's Knocklittle's first edit. Redrocket (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope no one minds that I took the liberty of blocking that user. I hate to bite the newbies, but I had an inkling she might be a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1 Nakon 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work Nakon, I think that your check user request needs to be listed properly though? (It is appearing in which might not be quite right?) (My mistake, it is listed.) Fnagaton 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously suggesting that Tony is operating socks? That is an incredible assumption of bad faith, and I would hope that the Checkusers throw it out as fishing. I disagree with the inclusion of that section, does it make me a sock? Woody (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet your second edit wasn't to remove the same disputed section that Tony1 removed. Nakon 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, I can't wait to see who brought a checkuser on Tony1; clearly someone who doesn't know him. By the way, not sure if this is here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caught up now; Nakon, looks like you think Tony is operating socks, and it appears that, not only do you not know Tony's ethics, but you've not followed closely what goes on at MoS. Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, I do not know this editor nor this dispute. I am requesting a checkuser because from a completely outside view, there appears to be some sort of sockpuppetry happening. Nakon 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to follow those MoS disputes a little more closely before you assume Tony is operating socks. Good thing Tony is likely asleep right now; I'm looking forward to his response :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means?" - It means good work by Nakon in reading the edit history and finding something suspicious about a new user being created that immediately does the same edits as Tony1 who was at his 3RR limit. You see when warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment. It's clear the user is angry, perhaps angry enough to create an extra account.Fnagaton 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the MoS pages? Heck, if I could ever catch up over there, I'd delete that silly, disputed text too (along with all the others who have). So, add me to the socks already. Hint: Tony doesn't need socks. He's much too effective with words for such a low trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between your account and a newly created account that starts to make the same edits? Being uncivil, like Tony1 was, is not being "effective with words" by the way. Fnagaton 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Add Tictactoo (talk · contribs) to the mix: and all this while Tony is likely snoozin' Down Under. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one Gooddesk (talk · contribs). Fnagaton 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody ready to apologize to Tony yet ??  :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am :-) sorry Tony Gooddesk (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If Tony apologises for his personal attacks against me first then I'll consider it. I can't say fairer than that can I? Fnagaton 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Finnegan started editing at 19:53 UTC and made 10 edits between 20:00 and 21:59. Tony1 has no edits between 20:00 and 21:59 UTC this year. Last edits between 21:00 and 21:59 were in November 2007, and last between 20:00 and 20:59 were in Aptil 2007. There are quite a few editors opposed to this text with better-matching edit patterns. Gimmetrow 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. This is when Tony's asleep. Um, what's next? Gooddesk is still unblocked, and has a message on his talk page calling Tony a sock. What admin is going to get a handle on all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• This Fnagaton's accusations shouldn't be dignified with a substantive response. Enough of my time has been wasted. TONY (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to take some admins back to admin school? We do not block editors for being knowledgeable about Wikipedia in their first edits, nor do we block them for simply using more than one account. For the love of all, actually read WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire situation was very strange (and I'm unclear on policy here, it took me a long time to figure out who Nakon was and why s/he had admin tools ... no tag on userpage, no RFA, is that the way things are supposed to work ???)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Naconkantari_3

Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive35#Naconkantari_.E2.86.92_Nakon SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

um, assistance is needed

In the past 2 weeks my user and talk pages have been vandalized 36 times by the same person. 142.163.117.98 (talk · contribs) and his sock IPs are obviously bored and feel the need to flirt with me. I'm flattered, but a-holes aren't my type. I'm sure I've met this user in another life and now my user page is once again semi-protected. Do I need a checkuser performed or what is the best way to get rid of this problem. It's getting rather tiresome. APK ^{yada yada} 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that 37, 142.162.71.109 (talk · contribs) APK ^{yada yada} 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the latest one, and can range-block (briefly) if he keeps harassing you. Would you like your talk page semi-protected? Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, if you don't mind. He will just keep coming back with a different IP otherwise. APK ^{yada yada} 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected your talk page for 24 hours--if he comes back either drop me a line or post here again. If he continues the harassment another way I'll range-block (they're all aliant.net in St. John's, Newfoundland; it's a pretty big provider so I would only do a soft block for a fairly short time). Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. APK ^{yada yada} 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone could always consider contacting the ISP. They may act on it, given the nature of the vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Simpsons tonight advocates editing Dean Martin on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Article has been unprotected —Travis^talk 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's near the start, when homer and bart are driving to the beanbag chair stuffing place. He says dean martin did things in just one take, bart says wikipedia says that he did a lot of rehearsal, and homer says he'll fix it when he gets home. And he'll fix a lot of things... --TIB (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Balloonman semi-protected it. Enigma ^message 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

omg preemptive protect desysop immediately pls. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Already unprotected by Stifle. — Edokter • Talk • 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jonnymore2008

I suspect it's nothing more than trolling, but for what it's worth, Jonnymore2008 (talk · contribs) has become suicidal after being blocked by myself for edit warring earlier today. Could an experienced admin please step in thanks? My further involvement appears to be greatly upsetting this editor. -- Longhair\^talk 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the page to an earlier state, sans the threats, and protected the page for the duration of the block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart

Resolved

Charles Stewart (talk · contribs), who was blocked] in March as a sockpuppet of community-banned user New England (talk · contribs), has made an extremely offensive edit to his talk page: [74] I think the clear solution is to full-protect his talk page, and those of his other sockpuppets, so that he isn't able to do such things again. szyslak (t) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and protected by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs). Thanks! szyslak (t) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Matereaterlad

User has been warned for vandalism, now cutting and pasting barnstars from my talk page, adding to his/hers [75]. The sincerest form of flattery. JNW (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The appropriation of such material from another user's talk page to make it seem like one's own is fraudulent, but is it, strictly speaking, vandalism? An administrator's view re: protocol would be welcome. JNW (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the kind of copy pasting as vandalism but as misreprentation on a user page it may be a mild disruption. I would wait and see if he carries on with this kind of thing now that the barnstars have been rm'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Context is relevant, as the incident followed my reversions of what I perceived to be the user's disruptive edits. JNW (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain that the editors who took the time to recognise JNW's efforts would appreciate having their accounts appearing to commend this new editor - I consider it extremely bad faith to abuse other peoples consideration is such a way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be rules set in place to protect and respect the use of Barnstars, im sure this isnt the first time it has happened and certainly wont be the last... unless there is a deterant. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really - Barnstars are not prizes or rewards but just a way of emphasising a "thank you" or "well done". Their 'protection' is in the respect we are supposed to show everyone else on the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the issue is broader than that of 'misappropriation' of accolades, but is about the misuse of content, and a kind of violation of one's talk page, as well as, as has been suggested above, a misrepresentation of the contributions of a number of editors. As such, I submit that this is vandalism, in this case enacted as provocation. But it might represent an opportunity to address such actions on the policy level, with specific guidelines covering such plagiarism, if none exist already. JNW (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Matereaterlad is part of a small team of sneaky vandals active last night. The others are 75.131.210.161 (talk · contribs) and Teksix (talk · contribs) (connection is obvious if you look at the history of JNW's talk and user pages, along with the barnstar-copying behavior). I think I have cleaned up most of the problems. "They" were making very, very minor changes to numbers and things ([76] which didn't verify when I downloaded the referenced documents. It wouldn't hurt if someone else had a quick look through all these people's edits. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More of the same: User has reverted administrator's edits and restored my barnstars and commentary to their talk and user pages [77]. A little help, please. JNW (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked, and have also protected the user and talk pages (they copied the barnstars to the talkpage too) - thus I have suggested that they request any unblock by email. My actions are open to praise review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Matereaterlad? So what; he eats people's mothers or something? HalfShadow (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gulf war syndrome

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected

Please see the recent history of Gulf war syndrome -- there appears to be a dispute between multiple IP addresses, who may actually be two banned users, one of which is removing the dispute tag and other text that the other is replacing. Protect? 76.231.188.81 (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dispute between the socks of Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) aka James Salsman and those of TDC (talk · contribs). Both very disruptive and very banned. 75.175.20.121 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bursar53

Resolved

 – semi protected page, blocked user for 3RR Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has removed content on the page of Oakhill College, i reverted him, placing a uw on his talk page. He then removed the same information again, i reverted and placed another uw on his talk page [78]. He has now removed the information for a third time. Can we get a third-party to look at this. Thanks. Five Years 05:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

Seems to be

Resolved

- Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is involved in an Rfc as one that certified the basis of the dispute. He's engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct against me on the talk page, maybe out of frustration that no uninvolved editor (including myself) so far sees the Rfc as warranted.

I pointed out that I felt that there was insufficient evidence for the Rfc to proceed, and would be likely to result in the Rfc being deleted within 24 hours. Since then, the above editor has made completely unfounded accusations against me (in other words) of being a sock-puppet and/or meat-puppet, and other assumptions of bad faith. In-this-diff-he-says “I'm convinced you've never read this Rfc and you've been commenting on it out of ignorance. I’m curious, is "Ncmvocalist" your primary account or do you just use it for fun and games?”

I have told him twice that I do not wish to respond further on the matter and that he should consult the arbitration committee if he feels that I have another account or am involved in the dispute, as it would otherwise constitute incivility and assumptions of bad faith here and-here, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he makes further

1. assumptions of bad faith "You are clearly involved, as you came her making false accusations about evidence - evidence that you never read, reviewed, or analyzed" in-this-diff
2. personal attacks and continues with the incivility "nothing you say can be given any credence by any rational human being...you are very good at playing dress-up, and I defer to your expertise in that matter. If I need a fake administrator or phoney arbitrator, I'll be sure to contact you immediately. Now, please, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed. Children should not be up this late." in-the-same-diff "Please go find somewhere else to play with your toys, as the "big boys" are busy here." in-this-other-diff

that is both counterproductive to discussion, as well as to the Rfc itself. It seems a blatant attempt to inflame an entirely separate dispute merely because he disagrees with the view of the majority of uninvolved editors that have commented on the Rfc.

It seems, earlier this year, the editor was also been asked by another editor to refrain from such counterproductive mud-slinging-type accusations [79], but clearly, it is becoming a habit for him when he disagrees with the view of another editor.

I request an administrator to at the very least, provide this editor with a formal final warning to refrain from engaging in such unseemly conduct again. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned User:Viriditas about personal attacks and made the editor aware of this discussion as should have been done when it was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry - I was meant to add to my request for the user to be alerted of this discussion by someone else. Thank you for being bold in alerting the editor promptly, and addressing this concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Falsehoods

Hi, the profile of Lieut.-Gen. Andrew Leslie is constantly being vandalized. The person changing it works for the defense teams in the Hague, and thus has a vested interest in creating a false (and negative) profile. Thank you, Stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merc-Steph (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected page. Edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please discuss on the article's talk page and use {{editprotected}} to suggest changes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked for 3RR. Page unprotected. Toddst1 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon just re-added the disputed material that may be a BLP violation. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Several times. Persistent little devil. Loren.wilton (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Seems that we are back to getting legal threats on this one: [80] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a previous thread on this from August 2007 called "Anonymous legal threats create an impasse". (i'm at work so i don't have time to look it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not blocking him for the moment per WP:DOLT. Recommend extreme care. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have left a strongly-worded WP:NLT warning. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this further it appears that most of User:Mofb's edits were acceptable or justifiable, whether rewording sentences or removing unsourced sentences and commentary. I've done a quick cleanup, made it a little more NPOV and added back links that should not have been taken out. I think we can put this to bed. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i personally think that we are now with a POV version - for instance the insertion of this (rather speculative) item:

[count rule]...as dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.

Thats a bit over the top isn't it? That combined with a large deletion of criticism, and whitewashing of sentences (such as a change that he is only sceptical of "catastrophic" global warming - which doesn't jive with either his writings, nor articles about it. And the complete deletion of criticism of his scientific views (not personal ones) from climate scientists as well as Monbiot.

Is that justifiable?

Can i again ask why the COI version was edited towards NPOV instead of the original version? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And whitewashing continues [81]. Is the Scotsman article correct - or do we take the word of the person? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Received a further legal threat on this [82] - leaving to other admins to see how best to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley due to the combined issue of edit warring and this BLP problem. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have frequently expressed dismay over the trend to give subjects an effectual veto over articles, I need to say that some (but by no means all) of the corrections made by the subject appear reasonable, and that the tone of the article prior to his edits might need some adjustment. The protected version at present is, incidentally, the version the subject edited, with some appropriate corrections by Stifle prior to the latest threat. I hope he will decide to remove the protection and continue editing, because he seems an appropriate neutral editor, and I think may be accepted as such even by the subject--the threat was not directed at him. The subject, of course, would have done much better to continue working with us, rather than against us. DGG (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Intend to do so after an appropriate cooldown. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

I am afraid that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Wikipedia content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Wikipedia had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Wikipedia libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

On balance, therefore, Wikipedia may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we will be removing the page, although that might be an option. On the other hand our forbearance on the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is wearing thin. I would like other administrators to consider this case as a matter of some urgency bearing in mind the page complained of has been under WP:OFFICE previously. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. This is the 3rd or 4th time that we've had this legal threat from a person/persons saying that they are Monckton. Including some that ended up in the media Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Wikipedia page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monbiot.com is probably not a reliable source. Left a message on WP:BLPN. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be simplest to block the conflicted editor for legal threats and COI attempts to spin his own article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to any of this. We are protected under U.S. law, and if he wants to try embarrasing Scotland by trying to ban the Internet there he is welcome. He is of course welcome to submit complaints, suggestsions, etc., either through the discussion pages (assuming he is not blocked at the time) or via the OTRS system. Wikipedia has policies in place to develop truthful, unbiased articles, and we are as a whole more neutral and truthful than many other sources and news outlets. However, if the person in question is a global warming denier and upset over being portrayed as such, I'm not sure he and an unbiased reporting of the truth have a whole lot to say to each other. We should use our regular procedures on this one, which work pretty well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is definitely unuseful here. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Wikidemo. I propose unprotecting the article on Monday (once everything has had a chance to cool down) and dealing with the article under standard procedures, and explaining very cleary to User:Mofb that he will be blocked on ANY further mention of legal action. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely necessary. I don't know how familiar you are with the article or with this contributor, but I've been watching both for a long time. There are major conduct issues here that need to be resolved irrespective of the legal side of things. Please reserve your judgment until you've read the arbitration request. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will. I will shortly be going away and will be back on Sunday evening. I plan on leaving the article protected for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Monckton has, as far as I recall, a long-standing dispute with George Monbiot. I'd not use the latter as a source in respect of the former. On the other hand, where climate change is concerned, Monckton is, I think, in a tiny minority, and given the dearth of qualified experts who back his position, he is widely cited as a supposed authority, which he is not. This has been a problem before. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Right then. What I propose to do is:
  • Unprotect the offending page
  • Give User:Mofb a final warning that any further legal threats will result in an indefinite block (with no more second chances)
  • Remind User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (and everyone else for that matter) about WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYN — anything going into this article must be strongly sourced and we cannot add our own opinion of what the source said
  • Watch the page so that I can deal with anyone else.
• If ChrisO wants to file an RFAr, he's welcome to, but I still don't see it as helpful or necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ah. ChrisO has already indefinitely blocked Mofb for legal threats. That probably simplifies things. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for community review

I feel this issue needs a wider review by the community. There has been a long-running history of problematic edits to this and other articles by User:Mofb and anonymous IPs, some of whom have identified themselves as the subject of the article, from December 2006 to the present day. Key edits are as follows:

Edits by 62.136.27.125 (talk · contribs):

• 01:44, 5 December 2006 - POV deletions of sourced content

• 20:51, 6 December 2006 - article blanked and replaced with message "This article has been removed pending resolution of libel proceedings against Wikipedia. Do not alter this page."

• 20:39, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning critic of Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

• 20:43, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning product by Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

IP address blocked for vandalism.

Edits by 81.77.248.148 (talk · contribs):

• 13:14, 30 May 2007 - self-promotion

• 19:50, 6 June 2007 - legal threat, pastes entire newspaper article into article

• 20:43, 6 June 2007 - IP editor identifies himself as Monckton and issues legal threats against Wikipedia.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley semi-protected.

Edits by 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs):

• 07:42, 7 August 2007 - adds inaccurate claim to have won £50,000 libel settlement from The Guardian

• 08:24, 7 August 2007 - legal threat

• 23:46, 7 August 2007 - edit warring, POV-pushing, legal threat

• 00:09, 8 August 2007 - legal threat

Edits by Mofb (talk · contribs)

• 11:43, 28 August 2007 - posts a request for arbitration (denied)

• 12:46, 25 April 2008 - major changes to article; some justified, other not (deletion of critical views, alteration of quoted sources, self-promotion)

• 13:13, 25 April 2008 - legal threat

• 13:36, 25 April 2008 - legal threat

• 15:31, 25 April 2008 - explanation of legal threat

• 15:51, 25 April 2008 - deletes CoI notice as "irrelevant"

User blocked per Wikipedia:No legal threats.

As far as I can tell, this user has never actually discussed with other editors any of the issues he perceives with the article. Virtually all interactions with Wikipedia and other editors have consisted of (a) deleting content he doesn't like and (b) issuing legal threats. To the best of my knowledge, this is the third occasion since December 2006 that he has threatened legal action.

As Stifle mentions above, I have blocked this user temporarily per WP:NLT while the latest legal threats are dealt with. Does any further action need to be taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. Viscount Monckton qualifies as notable (IMHO) but there is a lot more verbiage included in the article than I think is warranted.

How about deleting everything after the biography section. Then review point by point and put back only the information that is a) very well sourced and b) clearly important. I think we would end up with a better article, about 1/2 the length of the present one. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This ringing statement of opposition to censorship written by Moncton of Benchley is worth reading in the context of the complaints here. --John Nagle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stalins enema

This user is really getting annoying, and nobody seems to be home at AIV. Can someone help? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a vandalism-only account. Blocked as such. SQL^{Query me!} 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Runtshit sockpuppet - thanks for blocking him NSH001 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

something not quite right

[83] - a new editer made this rather odd, as far as i can see, unprovoced edit on someones talk page. Its quit odd unless im completely missing something. The editer has made a total of 3 edits, 2 are to that other persons talk page and the other was on the michael jackson talk page, where the user wants to know why he cant edit the semi protected article. He says he wants to remove lies, as im the main contributer to that article, im concerned about neutrality, i want the article to reach FA. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is rather odd. Since the editor has not had the chance to make any edits which may be looked at as OR or POV, its just best to AGF this one for the time being (egads look at all that alphabet soup). But there is truly no need for administrative intervention just yet. However, even AGF doesn't pass the fact that it is kinda of strange that this person sent out their rally of support as if they were speaking to Michael when it was on a totally unrelated user talk page...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There was also that stuff about her own personal life and child custody issues, its all rather worrying. Well i understand and appreciate your advise, im not so much worried about the article, more the person who made those edits. Infact the more i read it the more disturbing i find it, im i die hard jackson fan but this is something else entirely. If these edits are serious.... Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, things are got somewhat worse, here.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the story in the first edit based off this edit. It just seems like the editor is a POV pusher using a sap story to try and illicit editors to add their POV to the article. 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trusilver blocked the account for 31 hours by the way. Rgoodermote  15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Shes been unblocked again, i honestly dont mind so look as her self admitted person issues dont intrude further on the articles vastly improved quality. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sorry but it does not seem like this person is going to seriously edit Wikipedia and instead is going to try and push a POV. The edits so far say that. But right now I guess it is a watch situation. P.S. (edited this in after)I added a welcome with a plate of cookies. Rgoodermote  15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, i agree, besides, we need other people who are dedicated to michael jackson here, in the long term she might just be a "net gain" for the project. OMG i so didnt get cookies when i joined lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I am using all of my Good Faith with this one and it is going be a let down if anything goes wrong. Would it be best to have some one adopt this user? Neither did I come to think of it. Rgoodermote  15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...what a let down. The account is suspected sock puppet. Rgoodermote  16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry, still, its only an accusation. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone cares to look at it, here's the accusation in full. It would be great if some sympathetic admin would push the case along and put a stop to the disruption that this type of recidivist trolling causes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do see a sign that this user does indeed want to help. But if it is proven that the account is a sock..well...Rgoodermote  16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My trolling statement is in reference to Kristy22 (talk · contribs) and the original case, which I would like to see settled. It is entirely possible that SDLexington (talk · contribs) has no connection at all with Kristy22 (talk · contribs) and merely chose my talk page at random as the place to post a rambling message about Michael Jackson. It is only an accusation and the user should feel free to keep contributing to WP until the sockpuppetry case. I'm honestly curious to know what sign you see that suggests this user wants to help? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Im going to leave this now, not getting involved, thanx to all admins who took their time on this. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to do the same as well. I am of course telling the user I am stepping out. Rgoodermote  16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nilges user sinoza1111

Blocked user spinoza1111 is currently filling up the Ayn Rand talk page with insults and POV comments. He is posting from three IP addresses, though mostly his home one. He is not hiding his identity and traceroute confirm the IPs are in Hong Kong as is his primary account. Not sure what you can do about it as it's an IP address, but he's continuing to be very insulting as we was in the past, which got him blocked. Currentlky he's posting wild threats about exposing fraud on wikipedia and personally naming me in his insults. It's tiresome. I created a sockpuppet page with his three IP accounts on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spinoza1111 Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those IP's is definitely not him and you missed his home IP, which is 202.82.33.202. That is the only non-public, static IP address he edits from.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the last one is not him, but I don't think I added him to the list. I'll remove it and add the other one. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added his home account. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:David Tombe

User:David Tombe has been trying to insert a specific viewpoint in centrifugal force (fictitious) and related articles (Coriolis effect, reactive centrifugal force). Several users, including myself, have reverted him since his edits do not agree with modern physics textbooks. This has led to a continuous stream of reverts and counter reverts, bordering on, in my opinion, tendentious editing on David's part. However David has recently gone beyond this, and is now wikistalking those editors who disagree with him, reverting minor, non-controversial edits:

• reverting a vandalism correction
• reverting a removal of self-linking
• reverting a removal of linkspam
• reverting again a vandalism correction
• reverting removal of a non-sequitur

--FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe was warned that this behavior is considered vandalism [84]. He responded to the warning on an article talk page [85], and then went on to state that he will continue, unless we "stop deleting his edits", and that he'd like to see an administrator brought in. [86]. (I agree with him on that last point.) The last three of the above edits are from a after he received the warning. --PeR (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake radio/television stations?

Cans someone that knows how, check Special:Contributions/Word67 and see if the stations he is creating articles about actually exist? John Reaves 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

K15AE is fake only the Wikipedia article appears and a ton of Japanese or Chinese websites (some one could do a better job I did google). KJTV-CA appears to be channel 32 [87] out side source. I will check the others shortly. Rgoodermote  17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of reals and possible fakes

• K15AE-appears to be fake.
• KJTV-CA backed up by outside source [88]
• K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas [89]
• K41CZ-appears to be fake
• W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source [90]
• W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [91]
• K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [92]
• W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source [93]

There are a lot more but this should be enough till I get done with the rest. Rgoodermote  17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued List of reals and possible fakes (should say possible real)

• KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [94]
• K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source [95]
• K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source [96]
• K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source [97]
• KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [98]

It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up. Apparently ([User_talk:Word67]]) he is a sock of banne duser Dingbat2007. Is anyone familair with his MO? Does he create real article so he can slip in fake ones? John Reaves 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I took a look at his contributions and I see that the user does indeed have several real radio stations. So I believe like you said his MO is to make real Radio/TV article and then he slips them in. Probably in an attempt to prove some kind of point. Take a look at his contributions [99] and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked the admin who blocked him about his MO. Rgoodermote  18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 had no deleted contributions - i.e., I don't see where he created any bogus articles. All the edits I saw scanning just now were insertion of bogus information into articles: false cities and networks. Not to say that his tactics couldn't have changed over time; that block was issued 9 months ago. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For US broadcast station checking purposes, the FCC Broadcast Station Database is the definitive source. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fake" entries may be errors or premature. K41CZ says "K41CZ is a low-power television station in Lubbock, Texas affiliated with FSN, the station is owned by Una Vez Mas Holdings, LLC". In fact, from the FCC database, Una Vez Mas has two low-power licenses in Lubbock, TX, "KDFL-LP", and a pending license application with no call sign assigned yet. [100]. The facility number doesn't match, though. (More to the point, are UHF broadcast repeater and translator stations even notable? They're just relay stations. It's like listing power substations or cell sites.) --John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will bookmark that site. I was just doing a simple lookup for the call numbers. I was unsure of the information in the articles myself just didn't know where to look. Rgoodermote  00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User Continuously Blanking Archived Messages

User:Imansid is using her account and User:Saphiragold (and one time an IP) to continuously blank messages in my archive at: [101] after I have told her repeatedly not to at User talk:Saphiragold. -WarthogDemon 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Obvious socks, like you said. Check this and this. Hence the username. Advocate blocks for both. Enigma ^message 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Saphiragold, and I note that Enigmaman has warned Imansid. Any further blankings should now attract blocks for either or both accounts. I would comment that, in my view, while they are likely socks, and are vandalising, they are not using alternate accounts abusively - they are not pretending to be different individuals, eg gaining false consensus or operating as Good Hand/Bad Hand accounts. It may be that one person has different identities depending on where they are logged in - thus it is one user vandalising with two accounts. It is on that basis that I have indicated that further abuse by either account will likely result in both being blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Blanking archives is decidedly more "determined" than a stupid kid saying "ur gay lol!" on a mainspace article, and should be addressed in a more forceful manner. If they keep it up, bag 'em and tag 'em. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The two accounts were deleting messages made previously by one account; it may be that they think they "own" their comments - I hope I addressed that point in my warning to the "active" account - so there it might be considered that there was a reason for them doing as they did, even if they were incorrect to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, clearly blockable. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with removing libelous material from editing history by User:Grawp-related sockpuppets

[See previous requests, now archived pertaining to [102]

Article on recently-deceased actor Heath Ledger has been continually subjected to blanking of page by User:Grawp-related sockpuppets. Here is a link to the recent editing history: History. The red-items Diffs. need removal by administrators. (I do not use "oversight" request because I do not use e-mail with Wikipedia.) This article does, however, need such oversight/removal of this libelous vandalism from its editing history. If an administrator could assist with this process of removing such material from the editing history and, if possible, protecting the article from it, editors working on it would much appreciate the help. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Took me a while, but I'm posting a link to section of previous archived discussion about this: Archive 140#Two ways to help prevent Grawp-related vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia for class project

New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Wikipedia as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Wikipedia articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Wikipedia for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Wikipedia is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma ^message 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Wikipedia and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cave and NPR

Teri Gross interviewed cave on Fresh Air today, and quoted fro mteh article. the offending passage (which was PEACOCK or OR, depending on your view of Cave), has been removed, and NPR listeneers are highly unlikely to randomly vandalize, but it might be worth a few extra eyes today. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know he was still alive. I'll add him to my watch list. John Reaves 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JR above. He's still alive? Also watchlisted, partly because I enjoy his music, partly because of this post.......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, 50's not so old lol and I think he toned down his lifestyle a bit, so he has a while before people would ask 'is he dead yet?' :) Merkin's mum 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

new album Just hit stores, and I like it. Other than Teri's ripping on the crappy writeup we gave him, it's an amazing interview, and should be up on the website for Fresh Air. Well worth the listen, and hell yeah he's alive and kickin'. Red Right Hand FTW. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tachyonbursts

Further information: Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks § VegitaU_is_inserting_POV_and_he.27s_acting_against_consensus

Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: [103] [104] This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

168.30.128.198 and related

Resolved

 – pages protected

One or more users from this IP range have been making various nonconstructive edits to several articles, most notably North Georgia College & State University, Ted Haggard‎, and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb‎. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is, but this person is being a rather persistent pest.--Father Goose (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All protected for a short time for edit-warring, WP:BLP violations and unconstructive editing. here is a better place to report this type of nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia point?

Resolved

 – Page deleted as a G5.

Wikipedia:Deletionpedia Patrol seems to me to be a WP:POINT violation. It basically advocates trawling through the list of deleted articles and recreating them. While I'm sure the intentions are good, the concept of recreating prods soon after they're deleted, just to do so seems quite a bit disruptive to me, especially since it basically duplicates WP:DRV. Any thoughts? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

I agree with you, SJ. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a G5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have requested the pages' content here. I would like to recreate it, but in a way that is not a violation of WP:POINT. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the main problems is that while Deletionpedia probably does contain a few articles that could be resurrected with a bit of work and research, it also contains articles that shouldn't be restored under any circumstances - BLP deletions and pedophilia-related articles spring to mind straight away. There's nothing to stop people trawling it themselves, but I don't think we need it advertised on Wikipedia itself. After all, as Swatjester says, that's what DRV is for anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest while I see the political issues this project raises, I don't think this page duplicates DRV, because DRV is primarily for authors of a page and/or administrators to request re-creation of a deleted page, whereas this is a project organized for locating pages that should be submitted to DRV; for example, a page abandoned by its original author that got illegimately PRODed or CSDed. There's no clear POINT violation, since the project seems targeted at addressing a legitimate problem, rather than as an attack on current deletion practices. Ideally users would be able to do this type of deleted article review on Wikipedia itself, at least for articles that don't pose legal issues, but this isn't currently possible. Dcoetzee 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is no more a policy violation than a list of pages deleted at afd would be, and there are various such lists around, including people keeping lists of the pages they are proud for having gotten deleted.. People restoring pages do so at their own risk. DGG (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Including this page. If people want to restore it they should go to DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just process wonkery really, though, because the page was deleted as G5 (created by a banned user) so re-creation by anyone else avoids the deletion reason. Black Kite 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Deletionpedia page does what DRV doesn't do, i.e. it allows non-admins to see the deleted page under discussion and if anything will be a tremendous asset for DRV discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that it's useful for DRV discussions, the question is whether a project that advocates trawling DP for articles to resurrect is necessary a good use of projectspace. Black Kite 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's user Abd's meatpuppet - they are playing a long game - however I'm quite surprised they tipped their hand so soon. --87.112.64.32 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

...And our friend, 87... is User:Fredrick day back for more fun (and vandalism). 129.174.90.124 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)