Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive539

Legal Methods (Strauss) content removed by me under copyvio concern

The creator of this article has essentially created a chapter outline form the book. I removed that as it looks to me like a derivative work that would not be acceptable under Wikipedia:Copyright violations as not being releasable under the GFDL. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to population figures

Resolved

There may not be anything wrong, but this needs some eyes and I'm about to go offline. Special:Contributions/72.144.208.87 has gone through and made unsourced changes to population and changed the census information in a number of articles over the last few days. S/he may be right, or it may be vandalism, I'm not certain. Putting it here because it needs some eyes that I don't have the time to give right now. If these are good changes, great. If they're bad, they may need to be addressed. Thanks to whoever has a few moments. StarM 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick sample check shows that the figures being changed are supported by the official websites linked in the infoboxes, so I doubt there's a problem. Rodhullandemu 12:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with IPs changing numbers without making an edit summary. A lot of times it will be stealth vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The worst kind, IMO. Perhaps I'll drop a note on the IP's talk page. Rodhullandemu 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, calling this resolved now StarM 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

IP editor threatening a cyberworm

Resolved

 – Unsurprisingly, the sky has failed to fall. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, and I have my doubts about the sincerity of the threat, but 71.16.45.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited here saying that "A cyberworm is in wikipedia u must leave this on for 2 days or it will destroy wikipedia and all computers on it." Apologies if I'm reporting this incorrectly or in the wrong place. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're all doomed then, 'cos it's gone already. I'm gonna sing the Doom song now. Doom doom doom doo-doom doom.... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're off key just a tad, Sheffield. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The old Dragnet theme would seem to fit: Doom-da-doom-doom. Doom-da-doom-doom-DOOOOM. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, now the Dragnet theme is stuck in my head. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The story you have just seen is verifiably true. The user ID's have been changed to protect the guilty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Click the link I posted above. Make sure you watch the entire thing. Problem solved! Meanwhile... no other vandalism from this IP, and no DOOM as yet either. So that's good. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

However, he may have gone back in time and irrevocably changed the future, and we would never know it. Hey, it worked in Star Trek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Block request Can the IP be reblocked? Its last block was for three months in February. Enigma^msg 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP comes back to the Clover Garden School; presumably a wee bunny rabbit will unleash the apocalypse. Acroterion _(talk) 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Better that than the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Series of possible hoaxes

A while ago, before I started editing here, there was a series of hoax articles concerning one Vitus Barbaro, amid claims that he came from a noble Italian family and was involved in a wide variety of activities. A partial list of the articles involved can be found at User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. There was a great deal of sockpuppeteering and AfD, ANI and Talk page discussion in which the various perpetrators continued to claim that everything they had written was true. The various socks came from the Chicago, Illinois area, in particular Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois). There is now a similar series of articles: Battle of Lemos, Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia and House of Lemavia. All of the edits to these articles are by new accounts with no edit history. Perhaps not so surprisingly, when I did a search on Google for "Baron of Lemavia", I found a link to "Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia Location: Chicago, IL". None of the multitude of references that the various editors have provided mentions a Baron of Lemavia or a Lopez de Prado. They keep referencing books which, may, in fact, prove that their claims are true, but which nobody is going to be able to find. None of the various wesites they cite actually supports the claims, and in general, when they cite a website, it's to a main page, not to a particular page which supports the contentions. Now, I may be way out of line here, and these may in fact be valid articles, but it reads a lot like the Barbaro hoaxes which I found fascinating back when they were being fought. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I found one more: Order of León-Sable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman?, I'm sorry to hear about User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. As bad as an experience it may have been, this doesn't make other people guilty. First you accused me of being from Chicago, and I have proven you wrong (follow my IP address). Second, you said there were no references to these battles, and I proved you wrong again sending you the article of Dr. Brian De Toy. Third, you asked for a website (as if websites were the only acceptable source in Wikipedia), and I even sent you a link extracted from a history book fully dedicated to the "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" ( http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html). Fourth, you said this was a hoax, and I pointed out websites citing the list of people killed that day ( http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm). Fifth, you started to nominate a whole bunch of articles for deletion without reading any source. Sixth, every time I prove you wrong, you keep shooting in the dark for the next "nice try". Please, I understand where you are coming from, but as a new contributor I find hard to believe ONLY VETERAN CONTRIBUTORS CAN WRITE? This would be the end of Wikipedia.

A hoax? This link comes straight from the Ministry of Culture of Spain. These are protocols of nobility about the House of Lopez de Prado, another article you nominated for deletion without ever reading it: http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=2&txt_id_fondo=184080

I hope this answers all your questions and we can keep working together. (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

I never said you were from Chicago, I said a Google source shows that someone claiming to be Baron of Lemavia is from Chicago. Are you now claiming to be Baron of Lemavia? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1-Your link to mcu.es is dead, and 2- a search for "Lopez de Prado" comes up with lists of archives, not articles. None of the lists can prove your claims. 3- telepolis.com appears to be a social networking site, and therefore not a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And that brings me to another question: How did you, Niaps (talk · contribs) and Primadodelemavia (talk · contribs) happen to decide to come to Wikipedia and edit the same group of articles at the same time? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more fuel here: User:Qqtacpn, User:Niaps, User:Primadodelemavia, User:167.206.29.162, all have been editing the same closely related articles as pointed out above, no prior history apart from a few edits on the IP, User:Qqtacpn, User:Niaps, and the IP are also involved in articles related to Napoleon (Talk:The Crime of Napoleon, Napoleon I of France, Talk:Peninsular War, First French Empire, Talk:Napoleonic Wars, Arc de Triomphe) where they are fixated on painting Napoleon as a genocidal maniac of the caliber of Hitler and on the claim about a "murder" of a thousand of Spanish civilians during the Peninsula War, in connection with the articles currently under AfD. I am not familiar with the Barbaro hoaxes, I wouldn't think this is related though, this here looks to me like it's a case of original research by someone obsessed about that Don Manuel bloke and events surrounding his death. Equendil Talk 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn (talk · contribs) identifies himself on Talk:House of Lemavia as the author of the lemavia website. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also these edits on es.wikipedia [1], who edits here with the same IP 69.120.8.27 (talk · contribs) and seems also to be connected to the author of the website. Qqtacpn (talk · contribs) made this edit on en.wikipedia [2], an exact translation of what was added to the corresponding article on es.wikipedia [3] by the IP. Mathsci(talk) 10:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

• 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
• 2) Your lack of insterest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
• 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
• 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
• 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
• 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqtacpn (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proofs that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

I took up Qqtacpn’s request to search the Spanish Archives portal using the given query. It turned up several individuals named, in part, “López de Prado” or “de Prado”, but none with the name he has supplied as the X Baron of Lemavia, Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado. Furthermore, “Lemavia” produces zero hits on that site – not even the page that Qqtacpn provided a link to originally – and which doesn’t mention Lemavia (as other than a search term). Googling “Lemavia” turns up an interesting entry: Dr. Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia, has an Amazon.com wishlist! This suggests we might have some COI issues here (and who knows, possibly BLP as well). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

This seems to be a legal threat [4] [5]. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I have not reviewed the rest of this thread, but that is a clear threat worthy of a block, regardless of any other actions. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Username redirect

User talk:WikiProjectSpain redirects to User talk:Qqtacpn. Two points here. Is WikiProjectSpain and acceptable username, and surely a redirect is an admission of sockpuppetry? I don't know exactly, but I feel it's relevant to this discussion. WikiProjectSpain on Commons has uploaded images relevant to this, with 'own work' as copyright descriptions, which would make him a very good artist, and therefore worth asking where he got his source from. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• There seem to be multiple problems with this user. He has uploaded some copyrighted images onto wikimdedia commons claiming them as his own work. Here for example is a book cover by the living illustrator Richard Hook [6], a detail from one of the plates inside the 2004 book Spanish Guerillas in the Peninsular War by René Chartrand, which corresponds to this wikipedia image [7] (now deleted on commons [8]). Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jarry1250, if you go and read the history, you'll find that the redirect is part of an account renaming, by EVula, that took place precisely because the username wasn't appropriate. The redirect isn't an "admission" of anything. MediaWiki creates it automatically when a bureaucrat renames an account. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, that would explain it. Sorry, my mistake. The account remained active on commons, but that's being dealt with. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another sock?

Irmandino (talk · contribs), whose first edit is to Irmandiño, an article created by User:Qqtacpn. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no hoax - Please set the record straight

Askari Mark, thank you for verifying the sources. Let me clarify a few of your comments:

• 1) You have found about 10 people from the House of Lopez de Prado in the Royal Archives, who are listed as noblemen. Well, this debunks those accusations of hoax.
• 2) As you may know, the Sala de Hijosdalgos only deals with noblemen who want to be inscribed as such in another location, normally when they move from a distant land. Since Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado never changed residence, he didn't need to appeal to the Sala de Hijosdalgos.
• 3) You have also found mentioned Don Andres Lopez de Prado, listed as Knight of the Order of Carlos III at the Royal Archives. As you probably know, this is the equivalent in Spain to the British Order of the Bath. Most of its members are Grandees, the highest nobility in Spain. Again, the claims of hoax are ridiculous.
• 4) I have provided numerous certified transcripts at http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/, where you can find Barons of Lemavia being addressed as such.
• 5) Dr. Lopez de Prado has never been mentioned in any of the articles. The claim of possible COI, BLP also falls apart.

In summary, accusations of hoax have been proven wrong, and they MUST be withdrawn. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:House_of_Lopez_de_Prado should be removed. Besides, these articles were deleted by my own request (G7), and I do not want them re-published. Please read User_talk:Qqtacpn#Accusations_of_hoax_must_be_withdrawn.

People who made those accusations never took the time to verify the sources. I want to end thanking Askari Mark for taking the time. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

As someone who's spent a lot of time on the Barbaro hoaxers, this sure does smell pretty similar, right down to insisting that all mention of the hoax be whitewashed from the record - presumably so it can be shoved our way in a few months' time. This bunch, like the last, seems determined to test our reliable sources guidelines to the extreme by editing their bizarre stories into other web sites, then trying to cite them here. Keep these on your watchlists, all. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ESkog, your comment is unworthy of Wikipedia. You have failed to proof your accusation of hoax, now it is time to repair the damage. Again, these articles were deleted at my own request, I do not wish them re-published, and I have stated I'll abandon Wikipedia as soon as you recognize your error. It is called fairness and presumption of innocence. Show to the public that you know how to amend your mistakes. The alternative is public embarrassment from academics and historians who know about these facts and do not have Wikipedia's approach in high regard. Set the record straight, and you will regain my respect. (Qqtacpn (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

The record seems pretty straight, and I don't seek the respect of those who come here to play games with us. I have better things to do than continue this latest in a long line of pointless conversations, so you'll forgive me if this is the last you hear on the matter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn if you actually read what Askari Mark, you will see that he as well as other editors have set the record straight - by showing that sources do not back up your claims. I also find it disingenious when you claim the articles were deleted at your request, since you made no such request until some of your articles had already been speedy deleted as hoaxes and the others were well on their way to being deleted as hoaxes in Afd. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward321, you have accused me of a hoax without providing a proof. Askari Mark went to the database I provided, and he found that the House of Lopez de Prado exists and is a member of the nobility. Please acknowledge your assessment was wrong, as a matter of fairness. Thanks (Qqtacpn (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).

Askari Mark already provided the proof that your claims are false. Your own sources don't mention the House of Lopez de Prado, nor the Baron of Lemavia, nor anything about any of the several articles that were created by you and rightly and properly deleted as hoaxes. Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward321, once again you are intentionally making false statements rather than admitting your mistake. For the last time:

• 1) The House of Lopez de Prado is repeatedly listed as a noble family by the Sala de Hijosdalgo of the Kingdom of Spain. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=10.jpg
• 2) The Battle of Monforte de Lemos has been the object of study by numerous scholars, among them Brigadier General Manuel Garcia del Barrio, Prof. German Vazquez, Prof. Brian De Toy, Dr. Luis Moure-Marino, etc. Example: http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html
• 3) Contemporary letters of British Officers to the Royal Admiralty give testimony of the Battle of Monforte de Lemos. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Transcript_LetterMcKinley_ProfBrian.gif
• 4) The House of Lopez de Prado has been object of study by a number of publications, among them the Encyclopedia Garcia-Carraffa and the Grand Encyclopedia Gallega. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Encyclopedia.jpg
• 5) Members of the House of Lopez de Prado have been awarded some of the highest nobility honors of the Spanish Empire. Example: Protocols of the Order of Carlos III on Don Andres Lopez de Prado (http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=C-III-Exp1207_005.jpg)
• 6) Certified transcripts of official census of nobility list the Baron of Lemavia. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=scanCME.jpg
• 7) Living members of the House are Knights in some of the highest Orders. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Malta2.jpg
• 8) The Society of Lemavia is an institution of Nobility recognized by the Kingdom of Spain: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=ANVMLRMI.jpg
• 9) The Order of Knights of Leon-Sable is a registered institution of Nobility by the Kingdom of Spain: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Aprobacion_OMNLSBL.jpg
• 10) Additional documents have been presented at http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/

Administrators, this is our last attempt to try to solve amicably this dispute. If this is not resolved within the next few hours, the Society of Lemavia will present an official complaint to Mr. James Wales in the form of a public letter sent to the media. No legal actions will be taken, however the names of the administrators who promoted these false accusations will be listed. A number of University professors, some members of the Society, will support this letter of complaint. I sincerely hope you prevent this measure by immediately rebuking those users who made accusations of hoax. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I strongly suggest you withdraw the threat in the previous paragraph. It may not be a legal threat, but it is a threat none-the-less of off-wiki action to be taken against editors with whom you are in conflict. And it is simply not acceptable on the project to use threats of any sort to attempt to bully others into doing what you want done. So please retract the threat from here and from your talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Qqtacpn, Edward321’s reading of my findings is closer to being correct. My findings did not show that your articles are a hoax, but neither did they prove that they were not. As I stated, I found entries on a number of individuals holding the name “López de Prado” – not all of whom were nobles, by the way – including Don Andrés López de Prado, who holds the merits you described – and this indeed shows that a Sala López de Prado has existed. However, I was trying to confirm on your behalf whether the subject of the articles which have been called hoaxes truly existed in the sources you provided; unfortunately, I found no mention of Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia, who is the main subject of one of your articles. Demonstrating that the one exists does not prove the existence of the other. (Also, the search returns were not just from the Sala de Hijosdalgos; judicial and other records were presented as well.)

In short, I can find no proof one way or the other whether these articles are legitimate or hoaxes. In fact, the lack of reliable sources begs the question of whether some of these subjects are sufficiently notable to have articles of their own. As for the potentiality for COI, if you are this living Dr. Lopez de Prado, Baron of Lemavia – and I am in no wise trying to “out” you – and you are writing about a distinguished ancestry, then yes, there could be COI (and there are easy ways to work around that). I have examined a few (not all) of your recent links; they are what are called “primary sources” and you need to be aware that for Wikipedia’s purposes, independent, third-party secondary sources are preferred. If you will read about Wikipedia’s guidelines on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, you may better understand why this is so. Regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Askari Mark, we may not agree, but I respect that you bring your arguments to the table. At least you have taken the time to check some of the sources (maybe the problem is, I gave too many?). We have also provided encyclopedia articles, which are not primary sources. I can send you more encyclopedia articles on this family if you give me an e-mail address. From your comments, I also deduce that you are not familiar with this topic. Is there anyone with a Ph.D. or M.Sc. in Medieval Spain who can settle this for good? No disrespect (particularly to you), but I feel like trying to explain basic stuff to a number of all-wise high school kids who cannot even read Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).

(note that an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. that's why we don't cite Britannica directly unless we have to, other sources are preferred).

Good point. However, we do no longer want these articles published in Wikipedia. Those contributors who have called these articles a hoax should read those encyclopedias and acknowledge they made a mistake. But the problem is, they have called it a hoax without being able to read Spanish or having any expertise on this subject. Is this always the case in Wikipedia? (Qqtacpn (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Why isn't this at the Spanish wikipedia

I searched the spanish wikipedia and I couldn't find any mentions of either the house of Lemavia[9] or the relevant López de Prado person [10]. I could only find "Sánchez-Prado", who is neither the correct person nor a noble.

I'd suggest the creator to head to the Spanish wikipedia and write an article there about the House of Lemavia, in a place where all editors can read the sources, and then translate it here if it gets accepted as an existing house. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I appreciate this question. We started with the English Wikipedia version because Spanish encyclopedias, Genealogy books, publications of the Asociacion de Hidalgos (http://www.hidalgosdeespana.com/) have studied this family extensively. We (incorrectly) assumed Wikipedia editors would be able to read Spanish (our mistake). People at the Society have these articles translated in German, French, Portuguese and of course Spanish. But at this point, we are no longer interested in publishing in Wikipedia. We simply want those administrators who called these articles a hoax to withdraw their accusation.

Could you please explain the meaning of these sources I provided to those people who are calling it a hoax? Although they cannot read Spanish, they do not refrain from throwing accusations. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Obviously not or the Spanish Wiki would have articles. That wasn't even a plausible explanation, nor a very artful dodge.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, that's why you were so keen to reach a premature conclusion of hoax. I understand it and excuse it as such. It's probably our fault in part as well, we expected too much from English Wikipedia. (Qqtacpn (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).

An expert I am not, but I do know enough to understand what I read and to search for facts – especially reviewing the evidence someone presents for their point. In a way, yes, you did offer too many sources – most particularly those which did not directly provide proof that the specific articles claimed to be possible hoaxes – Battle of Lemos; Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia; House of Lemavia; and Order of León-Sable – are indeed historical events, people and entities. After wading through a number of your links, I was able to confirm (from a primary source) that Don Andrés López de Prado was a historical figure and a noble, which confirmed that there was an historical Sala López de Prado – but there are no articles on these that are being called hoaxes. Unfortunately, none of your links that I’ve gone through provide any evidence one way or the other that Don Manuel or the House of Lemavia exist. (I have not searched for the others.)

This does not serve your cause well because one characteristic of hoaxers is that when asked for sources, they tend to provide lots of sources which don’t prove their point. That is why so many editors here remain hostile and unconvinced of the authenticity of your work. Nor are they likely to be convinced by your photo gallery of certified documents regarding information in primary sources; unfortunately, as I have personally encountered, there are hoaxers who convincingly forge such material. Indeed, these problems lie at the heart of why Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anybody can edit, nobody is required to be an expert to write on a topic (nor, on English Wikipedia, fluent in a foreign language). Thus Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable secondary sources written by experts who do have full command of the relevant primary sources – knowing which ones are or are not fully accurate or are biased.

Enric Naval’s suggestion of starting on Spanish Wikipedia is a good one. If your work satisfies the editors there, it’s much more likely to be accepted here, since those editors have fluent command of the language in which most relevant sources are written – along with readier physical access to them for verification, if need be. I do not know an expert on medieval Spain, but I would recommend that you post relevant queries at the Military History Wikiproject – particularly at their Napoleonic era task force and Spanish military history task force – and Wikiproject Spain. Regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted

Any other of the offenders wishes to retract and receive a nice bottle of the best Spanish red wine in reward? Just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qqtacpn#Apologies_accepted, confirm you withdraw your accusation of hoax, and on my honor of a Spanish hidalgo, you will receive a bottle of the best Rioja within 2 weeks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).

Not a single person has apologized to. Just stop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

HAGGER vandalism again

Resolved

 – Blocked as VOA. –xeno ^talk 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=291017746#Uncontroversial_requests while obeying move requests I found this move reqeest:

Rubeus Hagrid → HAGGER? — Capitalization, formatting etc. — Ymreh lol (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it and not obeyed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, looks like someones getting desperate--Jac16888^Talk 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As with another user I recently declined to unblock, note the ananym of the username. Desperate, indeed. I wonder if there's a way for the abuse filter to look for these. —Travis^talk 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but why bother? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Grawp? Desperate? It seems we have reached our pinnacle, everyone. Congrats all around!— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the champagne! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

*Toasts with a bottle of Virgil's Rootbeer*— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

*Toasts with goblin thudrud* -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Hey everyone, I have been on wiki-break for about a month now and I was just coming back from my break and I noticed this legal threat on my talk page here, being that I have never had a legal threat made against me before, and with my knowledge of WP:LEGAL I am reporting it here for an admin to review, From what I can see and the way he said "So let me use the trigger phrases" before his legal threat, it appears that this threat is only a ways to a means for this user because he wants his IP blocked anyways. Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to email OTRS so that they can put a {{consent block}} in place. –xeno ^talk 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked for something else, and I removed the threat from your page as inappropriate. I recommend following xeno's suggestion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno :), I am currently typing up response to e-mail to him telling him to contact OTRS and request a {{consent block}} on his concerned IP's, I honestly had never seen the {{consent block}} template before so thanks for the help :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk)

No problem. I dug up the email address for you too: ( unblock-enwikiwikimedia.org ) –xeno ^talk 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed them and copied the OTRS main mailbox - as one of the OTRS people I can handle it from here. I'm not sure that this was actually from who it said it was, but we'll take it from here.

I also permanently semi-protected the school's article, as that appears to have been the single most appropriate solution to the actual underlying problem... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The unblock-enwiki email address is closed and doesn't receive emails any more; it was decided that handling block/unblock issues through OTRS was unfeasible, and all emails are now replied to with an auto-reply saying for people to contact mail:unblock-en-l. If there is something that you absolutely need to send to OTRS that is block/unblock-related (such as this), please just send it to info-enwikimedia.org, like George did. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I had to dig this up from unblock-en-l email correspondence, and didn't realize that email address was discontinued. –xeno ^talk 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats re: deletion of article

Resolved

 – Blocked three months for making legal threats AFD and AFD talk page courtesy blanked. MuZemike 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

68.5.237.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is giving Wikipedia 30 days to restore the Holly Landers article (deleted in Feb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Landers) or she will sue for slander, defamation, etc. I thought I should bring this here to ensure that an admin sees it. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 90 days per NLT, do we need to flag Godwin on this? –xeno ^talk 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Send a email to info-en@wikimedia.org and they will take it from there. Tiptoety ^talk 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I've also {{courtesy blanked}} the AFD discussion. –xeno ^talk 23:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the AfD's talk page, removing the legal threat and the IP's attempt at creating a bio. If it's replaced, semi-protecting the page would be a good step. --auburnpilot talk 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance here?

I am currently encountering someone adding in uncited information to the Actroid article, to whit, that the commercial robot was used in the final episode of BattleStar Galactica. While this is for the most part a content dispute, I am having the damnedest time pointing out to another editor that he cannot add uncited information. He seems to think he can. I've been going back and forth with this fine young gentleman, and I'm almost at the point where I ask for him to be blocked for disruptive editing. As I think he's just reacting to me (he's been following my edits around a bit over the past week), he doesn't seem to be listening to admittedly increasingly frustrated requests that he stop. Maybe someone who actually has the ability to place a bit more oomph behind their words could counsel the user on our OR and synthesis policy? I pretty much need to step away before I pick up a bat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave a 3rr warning to your opponent; you should both now back off from this for your own good. You are of course right on the content issue but being right, as you well know, is no defense for edit-warring. --John (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely realized what was happening, which is why I backed off and sought a saner path here. I appreciate your input, John, but I wasn't just looking for a 3RR warning to be given to the guy. I just wanted him to know he was wrong, and he had long since stopped listening to me tell him why. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Image Abuse

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

On numerous occasions in the past couple months, RESKONIE has added the This TV Network logo and The CW logos to broadcast television station pages. These logos are not licensed to be placed on these pages and mass overlinkage is frowned upon. After a large blow up, The CW logo is actually only to be used on The CW page. The user has been warned multiple times about this behavior, including once today and still refuses to comply with rules and policy. Would an admin please step in? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Like neutralhomer said, this has been occurring over many months. Look at the user talk page; you'll note there have been MANY personal attempts to contact the user, bring the user into the discussion, and to warn the user, as early as March 2009. Unless I've missed it, there have been absolutely no replies from the user. There was also a discussion/consensus on WikiProject: Television Stations; RESKONIE was invited to participate in that discussion via a personal message on their talk page. If you look at the history for KATU, you'll see a WP:TE pattern of additions by RESKONIE. tedder (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why the user replied and posted a message on my userpage. This user has been told many times to stop adding the ThisTV logo or use a higher resolution logo, but refused to participate in the many conversations about him.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted all uses of the image outside of the network article, and am adding a note to the image that it not be used for anything but the This TV or Weigel-related pages. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX

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

This editor has been blocked multiple times for incivility. Since the last block in February, the swearing and overly aggressive behavior continues: calling a user “illiterate”, swear-word laden ranting, this just doesn’t seem like a way to deescalate tensions, again, this seems a bit over the top, unfriendly edit summary, calling editors “shitheads”, needlessly hostile, unwillingness to discuss, use of “fuck” in edit summary, and again, unfriendly response to an apology, etc.

Now these are from this week: [11] and [12]. When I asked that he avoid such edit summaries, he replied with: [13].

Aside from the edit summaries, there's other assumptions of bad faith and the like from this week and including today. For example, he blanket accuses inclusionists of not knowing how to write an encyclopedia: [14]. Or other attacks on inclusionists: [15]. Accusing editors of gaming: [16]. Most recently, i.e. today, we have blanket repetitive assumptions of bad faith and insults against inclusionists: [17], [18], and [19]. In these same discussions, user is getting too agitated: [20], [21], etc.

These are above from this week and they are making disagreements into "inclusionists are bad" disputes from his opinion, which gets in the way of compromise and civil discourse. Given his rather considerable block log for incivility, even greater number of talk page warnings, and as he has already been the subject of ANI and Wikiquette, I don't know what next can/should be done, but such edits are fostering a battleground atmosphere as these are not the kinds of edits that invite cordial replies. There are polite and respectful ways to disagree. I tried to ask him in the one discussion to avoid some of the more imflammatory rhetoric and as I realize I am someone on the opposite spectrum of inclusion philosophy, I hope that a neutral party could do something to put a stop to the above kinds of edits, because thus far blocks, warnings, and polite requests are not working. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is very troubling. If editors are to feel like the rules apply to everyone, then NPA behavior like this should cease. Maybe a boot is in order, the last one was 72 hours?:
  • 05:05, 10 February 2009 Tiptoety blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Incivilty at User talk:Bobblehead, and User talk:Jojhutton.)
  • 19:58, 5 January 2009 Chrislk02 blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (extreme history of incivility. NEVER an eexcuse for this [22])
  • 23:34, 21 July 2008 John Carter unblocked "ThuranX " (per comments on user's talk page)
  • 23:11, 21 July 2008 Elonka blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Gross incivility)
  • 17:57, 28 March 2008 Husond blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (gross incivility after being asked to refrain from such behavior)

Ikip (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• He certainly doesn't seemed to have learnt from the previous blocks. I support some kind of block, especially when I consider the aggressiveness I've seen him display around this place. A week, maybe? Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I dont think a block is warrented. On the whole he seems a pretty good guy and works constructively within the project. I have looked at the full posts themselves as opposed to the "soundbites" provided and in their context they dont seem overly rude or aggressive.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Working constructively is not a defence if he fails to show others the proper respect. How exactly can calling people shitheads not seem overly rude and aggressive? Ironholds (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Like I have said, on the whole the guy is pretty civil and constructive. A block would be purely punitive IMO and help no one.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  You seem to be missing the point, and that is that "on the whole" isn't good enough. One over-the-line comment can't be justified on the grounds that he's made ten civil ones; good contributions are a basic standard, not a get out of jail free card. Ironholds (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  No need to be so aggresive with someone who has a different opinion than you, have a little respect for your fellow editors my friend. My I recommend some Yoga classes so you can get rid of some of that rage. Like I have said I dont think a block is warranted and if one was put in place it would be for purely punitive reasons and would be of no good to the community. He has apologised now and I think we should get on with something a lot some constructive to the project.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not being at all aggressive, although in my experience being baselessly accused of aggression and told to "go do yoga" can probably be stick on a list of Things That Tick Me Off, along with somebody who doesn't like me referring to me as friend. Where has he apologised? Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Why so facetious?  GARDEN  10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

block per continuation of events  rdunnPLIB  09:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Even if it was two days ago, this aggressive reply to this seemingly innocent and civil message is enough for a block in my book.  GARDEN  09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Shame really, because he can be civil when he needs to be..  GARDEN  09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Is there an immediate problem that demands a block to prevent a problem? If not (and I don't see it) clearly the best course of action for an editor who is productive would be a warning that future incivility would be looked upon poorly. I don't see any point in blocking him now, and equally no admin action required (anyone can warn someone about incivility). Black Kite 11:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, as there is an esacalation in tensions in the numerous Mash episode AfDs he started that go from copy and paste replies to DGG as engaging in "inclusionist wonkery": [23], [24], and [25] to other annoyed replies as evident from edit summaries of {"tired of this crap", "ugh", etc. And these follow up on the ons about how inclusionists don't know how to write encyclopedias, create hoops to jump through, have unrealistic goals, etc. These are from up through May 14th, i.e. today. All this blanket denigration of a whole group of editors does not lead to constructive discussions for the same reasons why blanket denouncement of deletionists would get us nowhere and what I see is an increasing intensity in this regard that has been building the past few days. These are stopping points to civil discourse and for any editor's own peace of mind, when someone is getting that flustered, I would urge them to take a break anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• This user is a regular on ANI and tends to inflame discussions here. This is damaging to the processes of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ThuranX you mean?  GARDEN  15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yah. And you can read the above as support for a block, as it would be preventative to Wiki as a whole to quell this behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd just like to comment that I've repeatedly seen ThuranX leap into ANI threads that he wasn't involved in, making extremely abrasive blanket statements. He is then asked to strikethrough his comments, never does, but no one pursues the matter. McJeff (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I've largely ignored this, it's pointless. However, I should note that OR and McJeff were both on here recently for problematic behavior, and not for the first time, and I've continuously supported proper blocks against them, their input here is simple tit-for-tat. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I gave him a "cut out the nonsense" warning because frankly I don't see the massive disruptive. Yes, he's being an uncivil jerk and yes we have enough uncivil jerks here, but I don't see enough to be blockable yet. Warnable, told him to cut it out, but not blockable yet. Following his comments at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F, two people basically told him his line in the sand "this is totally wrong" routine isn't consensus and isn't going to work, with basically "that was uncivil and not helpful." And that's on a page with a number of users making claims about "inclusionists" and "deletionists." Hell, the proposal uses the words "inclusionist/deletionist arguments" so to complain about his denigration of a group of people is a bit hollow to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

since his responses to me were mentioned above, I need to say that I have not started or joined any complain against him in connection with them, nor would I join one based on them. . DGG (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can't make excuses for earlier incidents, in this case, I suspect ThuranX is getting really stressed from the issues revolving around the M*A*S*H episode discussions. I was, in fact, coming here to post a request for an admin to look into those and keep an eye on things, before seeing this thread. I feel User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s actions here should also be looked at some. He made bad faith accusations that ThuranX was showing "recentism bias" in nominating the articles.[26] and seems to be making personal attacks in several of the AfDs.[27][28]. RAN also created his own essay, Wikipedia:Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays as if they were Wikipedia approved policy, on May 7th and is claiming it "replaced" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS by virtue of it being newer[29][30]. He appears to be following ThuranX to continue posting this, and refactoring his comments after he's received replies to point to it. As you can see from my talk page, ThuranX is really feeling attacked and upset by RAN's behaviors. I'd agree his temper is high, and some of his recent responses have a mild bite to them, but I do not think he should be blocked. He is a good editor and I don't see that he has really crossed the line at this point. Having RAN and other going after him seems like an attempt to get him to do so. I've urged him to walk away for a bit to calm down. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thuran is making more bad faith accusations against editors, such as "What the hell is wrong with you?," claiming there's "a hivemind of inclusionism," which is out of line here, because I see inclusionists saying to merge in these discussions and not just repeating what each other wrote at least no more so than those saying to delete, and as far as I can tell seems to be attacking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for daring to argue to keep in the flood of mass nominations of Mash episode articles. Remember, this latest tension follows up on behavior over the past couple months that includes calling people "illiterate" and "shitheads" as pointed out above. After months of such insults against editors as well as swearing at them, adding to new tensions now just seems unhelpful. I am concerned that anyone would feel this flustered by editing here. It's a volunteer site. Sure, not everything goes as we'd like, but there's no need to take things too personally or to become so enraged. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment on my page was left AFTER my message above. Your wording makes it sound as if he continued after that, and he did not. He has not edited at all since then. Let's make sure that is clear. He did as was suggested and walked away to calm down. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem with Richard Arthur Norton, as Collectonian himself notes, is that RAN was redacting his comments after I'd replied to them, editing them to change the entire nature of the discussion, and appear to cut me off, making it look like i was disregarding or ignoring all he said. I asked him repeatedly to stop, Collectonian asked him to stop, he did not. It is quite frustrating to try to have a discussion with someone who is manipulating the entire discussion in that manner.ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sanction of some sort, his "What the hell is wrong with you?" was my first encounter with him on my page, and my family found it threatening enough, that my wife asked me to stop editing Wikipedia. I guess that is the reason to intimidate, to win with a threat what you can't convey through logic and policy. But what is the point of blocking him for three hours again? A few hours block doesn't change attitudes. He needs to agree to be civil or face tougher sanctions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This after you claimed he was thin-skinned? I guess its all in the perception. You feel he is attacking you, he feels you are attacking him. Guess we should just block you both? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Banish him at once The comment he left on Norton's page alone should show the character of the accused. Thinks everyone is against him, and goes on the attack most savagely. The wikipedia would have more contributions without him around harassing other editors. Dream Focus 11:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pot and kettle...or will you extend your banishment to others who have done the same thing? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that many of the folks coming to call for ThuranX's banishment are all RAN's fellow ARS members? Perhaps we could leave the discussion to more neutral folks who are not being influenced by their dislike of "deletionists". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, RAN is not a member of the ARS. Ikip (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And anyone notice that those supporting his continued incivility are not? Wow. Actually, it does not matter what project opining editors belong to or if they do not belong to any project, as that is not germain to the issue. What is germain is this editor having been repeatedly blocked for rudeness and blatant incivility and apparently not learning anything from the incidents other than he can do what he wants, get a slap-on-the-wrist, and come back to repeat the same disruptive behaviors. THAT does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Who here is saying that Thuran is being awesome?! I've been tarred with the "deletionist" brush by a few editors in this thread AND I've had insults and unpleasantness thrown my way by Thuran. I don't think that what he is doing is good and very few people in this thread do. However, the fact remains that the first two posters in this thread and the majority of the folks calling for some strong sanction happen to be rank inclusionists. Honestly, this shouldn't surprise anyone. They are on the opposite side of an argument from Thuran and would be the likely target of invectives. I don't think that you guys need to respond to every call for neutrality with some retaliatory accusation. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, while I cannot speak for everyone, this thread is not about a dislike for deletionists. You're a deletionist and I said in a recent AfD to keep per your improvements, offered to give you a rescue icon on your award page, etc. Stifle's a deletionist and gave me a barnstar for an idea I had. I disapprove of some editors' behavior, but just because someone is deletionist does not in my opinion automatically mean I or anyone should dislike them. In fact, I have had some rather pleasant interactions with self-described deletionists and certainly respect and understand the opposing viewpoint to mine. There's no reason why inclusionists cannot have fundamental disagreements, but maintain civility at the same time. Here, however, the editor in question is actually not simply aggresive to inclusionists, but even to fellow deletionists! For example, on May 12, he called Gavin.collins "arrogant" and that Gavin's message was "a fucking farce". This reaction came after this edit by Gavin, which seems relatively polite. Did Gavin's call to discuss really merit that harsh of a reply from Thuran? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If this isn't another inclusionists v deletionists political wrangle, it's very unfortunate that it looks so much like one. The first poster to this thread used to be called another name(one of our more famous inclusionists), and the second used to have another name (but it's hard to track down - both editors seem to have abused their right to vanish in the past).

I'm not opposed to the idea of any action being taken against ThuranX, but perhaps a user conduct RfC would be in order, to ascertain the community's opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the old names here. Please dont use them again. I can't speak for nobody, but there are some privacy concerns with my name. Accusing editors of abuse simply because they changed their name is a bad faith accusation. Ikip (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see relatively few are. Instead, most of the people complaining are those that don't like the manner in which ThuranX attacks and cusses when dealing with others, and how his argumentative nature hasn't changed over the past 8 months. Instead, it just degrades this forum and other forums more and more. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've never seen a complaint about a deletionist's conduct be brought to ANI without the usual crew of deletionist popping up to 1) insist that he didn't do anything wrong enough to be intervention worthy, and 2) accusing the complaining party(s) of being an inclusionist lynch mob. McJeff (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm a deletionist. :) So, we can end any idea that it is partisan. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hang right on. How many "deletionists" are there in this thread insisting that Thuran is innocent? Count them. Frankly it is stunning that we can substitute broad generalizations for actual evidence. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sanction of some sort is appropriate. I just noticed this thread, but it includes several diffs to ThuranX's contributions there, which were uncivil and inflamatory responses to a proposal, despite repeated attempts on my part to engage him civilly. If we want to rescind WP:CIVIL, that's fine, but no amount of contributions should be an excuse for anyone to weigh in to a discussion with this sort of edit summary. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Users for Deletion Every time I browse ANI, this guy insulted another editor. I'm sick of seeing him. Nuke. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in this, but I think that the community should also consider this edit. Note that, as I explain here, ThuranX is in error about when the material in question was added to the article, but he nonetheless insists on portraying himself as the victim of bad faith. This particular case is a minor one, but it shows that even after he's been cautioned repeatedly ThuranX is incivil and far too ready to assume bad faith. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• What, specifically is the problem with either of those two diffs? Protonk (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The second diff is me, pointing out ThuranX's error in the first. ThuranX is accusing me of "cheating" in the edit summary, and says "I see you are now joining in the Bad Faith discussion that Richard Arthur Norton is perpetrating, in which you reply to or redact commentaries in a way that deliberately makes mine look as though I am ignoring what you say. Deplorable behavior." I did no such thing. At 05:32 UTC yesterday, I added a source to the article Bananas, Crackers and Nuts noting that the episode had won an ACE Eddie Award. At 05:35 I noted this in the AfD. At 13:50, ThuranX said that he would withdraw the nomination "if that can be sourced properly". I was confused by this, and at 22:07 I asked for clarification. Then, at 23:09 ThuranX made his incivil and inaccurate accusation of bad faith.
    The dispute is, as I say, a minor one; I thought that the problem would be visible from the two diffs I initially gave. It's just further evidence to be considered in this case, that's all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: after I made a request for him to retract his accusation of bad faith, ThuranX grudgingly did so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll not defend his manner here, but I will say that being the subject of an...inquiry...like this can make one a little defensive. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I am disappointed that the entire exchange between Josiah Rowe and myself was simply gaming for use here as evidence. I made no waves about striking out all that he asked me to. I cannot explain why his edits didn't show when I went to look, it might have been a cache issue of some sort. He asked, I struck out. Hardly the incivil horrors he makes it out to be, and to bring it here as evidence for an indef ban AS he asks me to resolve it? Hardly ethical. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Did I say anything about an indef ban? I was just pointing out yet another case in which you assumed bad faith without evidence. This was not "gaming" — just pointing out that even when your behavior is under administrative review you still continue to jump off the handle. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • There's still no jumping off the handle. You've been instructing me on how to think and feel, and when you complained about my reaction to such edicts, I struck that out too. As for the indef ban, what do you think the purpose of this AN/I is? read it. It's a call for an indef ban. I assumed bad faith because it looks like bad faith, and when I'm already been hit with a steady stream of uncorrected bad faith actions, if I think I see more, I say I see more. I struck it when you came to me and asked. I still see no one saying anything to Richard Arthur Norton about his pattern of redacting and refactoring to put me into a bad light, which has put me on guard for bad faith and manipulation of this entire AfD series. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, other admins can judge for themselves whether my saying "We'll have to agree to disagree" constitutes "instructing [you] how to think and feel" or "telling you what to do". I haven't examined Richard's behavior; but this conversation is about yours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Where this appears most certainly to be an inclusionists against the world" struggle (note I !vote 85% of the time for "keep"), the substantive argument against ThuranX is lacking. I looked at the diffs provided, and note that those casting stones have been equally uncivil. I suggest that people do a search on the stated abusive language and note that many admins use such language on a regular basis, and are not sanctioned for it. Meanwhile, it is eminently clear that this is actually a try to remove a person who is active in AfD - where the cheif complainants are exceptionally active. Have a cup of tea everyone. This is not a valid case for sanctions at all. Collect (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking into the matter, I haven't seen one instance of anyone cussing, accusing him of cheating, attacking him, or the other incivil actions as ThuranX has done, so please provide proof that people are doing what he is doing. Also, there is no proof that this is to remove anyone from AfD nor affects AfD. This is a matter about his actions across many areas, so your comment about is a breach of Civil and AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Search finds many thousands of use of the F word in WP. Amazingly enough. I also find "illiterate" when he refers to how someone interpreted what he had written to not be an attack. Making a change to indicate prescience two minutes after Thuran posted, and without re-timestamping the post is misleading at best, if one declines the word "cheating." Again -- all is better served with a cup of tea than anything else. This is not the place at all for casting stones, to be sure, and posting the diffs to show what is occurring runs contrary to my position -- that is to simply have everyone relax a bit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

By changing the subject does this mean you have no edit diffs? You made a pretty serious accusation: "I looked at the diffs provided, and note that those casting stones have been equally uncivil." and when someone called for evidence, suddenly you change your position. So where are the edit differences? Ikip (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

TX's conduct is symptomic of a general decline in civility in the general sphere of article inclusion and deletion. Calling people disingenuous, disruptive, etc. is not uncommon, and TX is only a shade worse than that. There's relatively little policing, because most of these discussions are metadiscussions of metadiscussions (discussions of conduct of editors at deletion/policy discussions, discussions of how to handle deletion discussions, etc.), so th practical impact of these pages is narrow and the only people who care are fairly entrenched.

So we have people who bring this general level of incivility to other circles, or people who go a little bit further in being incivil in these circles. Nobody wants to deal with it, because dealing with it means dealing with all of the people who are being jerks to each other. It's also difficult to take seriously claims of incivility from people who regularly toe the line in what is tolerated. On top of this, any number of these combatants is willing to turn any of these threads into a fistfight over whatever the particular issue of the day is, distracting from conduct, or attack the person who brings up the issue, further distracting from conduct. And, worst of all, any sort of action is frequently seen as vindication by the sanctioned combatant's opponents. You block ThuranX, you galvanize RA Norton. You block RA Norton, you galvanize Collectonian. You block Collectonian, you galvanize Pixelface. On and on.

I'm naming names here because the people have earned it, and a good many otherwise-reasonable editors I've met are horrible people in these circles. If you suspect that I am talking about someone you don't like, I am almost certainly talking about you. If you're planning to say, "Well, aren't you one of these people?" the answer is "Well duh."

I don't know the solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree AMIB that there is "a general decline in civility" If admins do this, what hope is there about general civility? Ikip (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I could just as easily have used you as an example. Collectonian's comment above or your comment are examples of the sort of distraction; well, isn't the accuser just as bad? Doesn't the accuser have an ulterior motive? It's a hairball of obnoxiousness in response to obnoxiousness. I don't doubt that ThuranX is both instigated and instigator; the difference between the two is slim. When most of Wikipedia's dispute resolution is based around amicable discussion or removal of troublesome users, what do you do where you have a whole sphere that is nothing but fistfights? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Take it to RfC/U - if there's a case make it there. But I would caution that the whole 'deletionist vs inclusionist' discussion has clouded the issue. It doesn't help that both of these terms get thrown around as epithets (not in this discussion but in general) and that doesn't help outsiders form an opinion on the issue--Cailil ^talk 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist (AFAIK), though I have had some unpleasant experiences with Thuranx. His personal attacks and bad behavior, and generally hostile tone is a constant in his contribs. A warning would be roughly as effective as a barnstar. This user is clearly not understanding that what he is doing is wrong. IronDuke 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with IronDuke here. I fail to see how this entire complaint about ThuranX is a vast inclusionist conspiracy to get him. ThuranX makes many good edits, and so long as folk agree with him, he is a charming little fellow. When people disagree with him, his behavior gets really unfriendly. My first run-in with him as a newbie nearly made me leave the Project right then and there. I wonder how many other new editors simply leave, thinking that ThuranX' behavior is not only on par with what they should expect (not to mention tolerated). In itself, that makes ThuranX a net loss to the Project; we cannot afford to scare away editors who need to be encouraged, not shoved off the cliff.

I am not defending the others' actions; clearly, they aren't angels here. That often muddies the waters enough that admins give up trying to suss out the truth. The same complaints about ThuranX keep coming up, and he has made it clear that he considers each complaint to be the product of morons. How many RfC's does ThuranX have? How many AN/I complaints? How many WQA? Are they all stating the same problem, and have those diffs that make us cringe?

I don't know that a short-term block will do any good. I think we all understand that some users cannot - or will not - alter how they choose to interact with the online world. I'd suggest mentoring, but again, I think we know that ThuranX is too proud or stubborn to accept that anyone else can help him improve. Indeed, I think its clear he doesn't ever think he's wrong.

Maybe what's needed here is a Civility Parole. It has been used with some success in the past with other users that have recurring civility issues, and it seems to have the benefits of positively reinforcing civil behavior while instantly arresting uncivil, attack-y behavior. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen civility parole in use before, but it sounds like a good idea, better than either ignoring the problem or a ban. (I agree with your assessment that ThuranX makes useful contributions, as long as others agree with him.) How would a civility parole work? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It was used for DreamGuy last year. For the most part, it has served to curb that user's more aggressive tendencies. The way it works is that the user is enjoined from being uncivil. If the user acts in an uncivil or attacky way, the block is quickly investigated and escalating block periods are given. The down side of this is that users who particularly dislike the user on probation, some false positives can occur. In the aforementioned user's situation, some editors would adopt a hyper-sensitivity to incivility from the user. Such situations are frequently unfair, as the user can be blocked at the drop of a hat. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the user under probation was indeed trying to be civil. It has worked with DreamGuy somewhat, which - not to sound mean - has served to curb a lot of that behavior from permeating discussions and edit summaries. I'd like to stress that we cannot think we are changing the user's personality - no one changes unless they want to - but it can add the carrot and the stick to the equation. If they edit politely, they get to continue editing. If they don't, we have a right and a responsibility to make sure this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit peaceably - the user is blocked to protect everyone else's ability to edit in a positive environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with RFC/U. I'm certainly no inclusionist, but the edit summaries provided by A Nobody are way over the top and completely unnecessary. We don't need that sort of thing on the project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

220.235.27.78 - ToV

Resolved

 – Police notified

Not sure if this is the right place for this or not. But this user keeps changing the content of Together Through Life with bomb/death threats. Some examples of his work: "Opps, seems like I just shot someone in the houes, I am warning you give me the $100,000 or the whole family will be dead" and most recently "I will blow the fucking brains out of every one of these motherfucks, come to [street address], Ellenbrook or I will kill the fuckers." Should this be taken seriously.. or is there some special procedure that should be followed? I checked the IP address and that address exists where the IP is coming from. Thanks --T'Shael MindMeld 08:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone local should phone the police, threats like this should be taken seriously. If I remember correctly it's a felony as well. Matty (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

His IP is out of Perth, Australia..not sure who is from there that is on here right now. I'm in Texas, but could still call 9-1-1. Terorristic threat is a felony in the US. Any suggestions? --T'Shael MindMeld 08:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ellenbrook is in Western Australia, just outside of Perth. The address is also a real address. Worryingly, everything seems to check out. I'm not sure if the American police would be able to contact the local authorities effectively, but if you feel comfortable you have nothing to lose calling. Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm might be useful reading as well, this threat seems pretty credible even if it is a joke. Matty (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thing has kinda creeped me out. If things didn't check out so nicely, then I wouldn't worry. I'm going to try to locate the number of the police in his area. --T'Shael MindMeld 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The number (131 + 444) that the local police here gave me doesn't seem to work, so if anyone is actually in Australia and feels compelled to call the authorities - please do so. --T'Shael MindMeld 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That telephone number will not work for international callers. The ordinary telephone number for Ellenbrook Police Station (2 Civic Terrace, Ellenbrook, WA 6069) is +61 8 92 97 98 00. An automated message will direct you to either 000 or the above number. Dial '1' after you are connected to reach an officer at the station. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would also suggest someone oversight the edits with the address in them, unless they need to stay there for the authorities. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind and remember to email oversight in a day or two if no one contacts the local police. The IP has been blocked for three days but I believe the threats of violence should really be looked into. I'll try emailing the Perth police after I find a working email to notify them but in all honesty their were separate edits made over a day so I don't really think this matter is an immediate serious threat of violence, and i'm hoping i'm right. That said, the nature of the edits leads me to think there is a serious underlying problem with the person making them and the police need to be notified (i wont quote anything here as they'll end up being oversighted in the end). Hopefully i'll be able to get in contact with them soon but i'd urge any admins/users from the Perth area to notify the police as well. Matty (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given further consideration I have called SA police and have notified them. Please do not oversight the edits.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Police have sent a patrol car to the address mentioned and the computer crimes unit are investigating the IP.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Does this mean the edits can be oversighted now or do the authorities still need them to stay in the history? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm expecting a call back from Paul (computer crimes unit) detailing the result of the investigation. Until such a time I think that the pages should not be oversighted, I had a hard enough time explaining that anyone can edit wikipedia and I would hate to oversight them while he still needs them ;-) I'll email the oversight team when he gives me the ok.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping us up to date. --T'Shael MindMeld 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The police sent a patrol car out (without the $100,000 of course!) but no one was home (or no one answered), They said they would send another out tonight and get back to me tomorrow. They said the IP originates from that rough area so they are going to make inquiries as to why that specific address appeared in those messages. Paul has explicitly asked that the edits are not oversighted as they may be needed for legal reasons.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if there are legal concerns as to whether or not to oversight the edits, it might be in the best interests of the police for them to contact the Foundation so that appropriate steps to back up any evidence can be taken. - Philippe 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The oversighters OTRS list has already been emailed notifying them. Prom3th3an (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Get off that doppelganger. :P - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Its my old username (before rename) and I sometimes instinctively log into it without thinking.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh unblock request

Resolved

 – Declined. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Grant.Alpaugh is requesting an unblock at his talk page. I would suggest that discussion continues there.--Stephen 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I analyzed the edits of Grant.Alpaugh. I believe he should be given a second chance. I'm willing to unblock Grant.Alpaugh. I will talk with the blocking admin first. AdjustShift (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has 12 blocks on his record, since March '08. He has been unblocked five times based on promises to edit better in the future. I suggest that an indef block is the right thing in his case. Let him reapply in a year's time. He is well-intentioned, but seems to suffer from WP:OWN on the articles he works on. Since he gets into wars constantly, he may drive others away and is not a net benefit to the project. If you include a block log on a previous account, his troubles go back to 2007, so any promises of reform have a hollow ring. (He should have figured out how to work with others by now if he was ever going to). EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More than a month is needed in my opinion. Further the user hasn't come to terms with all the things they were blocked for, ie meatpuppetry. Obviously if consensus proves otherwise I won't object, but I think it's too soon and today's apology didn't cover everything. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep him blocked. Net drain on the project, no indication in the unblock request that he's about to change his ways, and a long record of re-blocks that suggests quite the opposite. Perhaps in a year he may still be interested and have learned he can't game the system.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A month is definitely not enough time. This user was on his very last chance with a 0RR restriction and was still reverting. I'm not sure there's anything that can convince me he will not return to the bad behavior that got us here. I agree with Ed, a year at least. It was my ruling when declining his last unblock request that the community had lost patience with him. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) I have just  Declined ([31]) the request for unblock. — Aitias // discussion 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus is to keep him blocked. I was willing to unblock, but now I won't unblock him. Maybe after six months or one year, if he admits his blunders and promise never to repeat it, we can unblock him. AdjustShift (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Weird admin behaviour!

Unresolved

 – There's nothing that requires intervention by an admin here. If you're bothered by the comments made then consider following the dispute resolution policy. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Could an admin please advise User:William M. Connolley that hectoring voters on an RFA, after its closure is not a good idea [32], particularly that of Flying Hamster's. Accusing oppose voters of slavishly following me, is a seriously bad idea. I had (notice past tense) decided to drop the matter of voters slavishly following anyone, but it seems that is not Connolley's wish. I strongly recommend one of you advises him to shut his misinformed mouth before all hell breaks lose. If this is the acceptable standard of Admin behaviour perhaps it would be better if they all stayed on #Admins and not visit here at all. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, if Tex is bothered by this I'm sure he is more than capable of bringing it up himself. the wub "?!" 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a stuff how bothered Tex is by it - I am bothered by it! Is everytime one of Connlley's friends's is opposed to be blamed on me - is now opposing a chattering candidate to be a reason for attack? That sound to me like someone, or an entire group, is seriously worried. Giano (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very unusually, I agree with Giano. WMC's message, intentionally or not, comes across as intimidation, and that's not appropriate. Of course, very usually, Giano's tone is not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, Giano. I should feel special that of the 32 people who opposed Flying Toaster, William took a special interest in me a day after the RFA was closed. I don't know what I'll do now that his opinion of me has been confirmed, but I'll just have to live with myself knowing I have disappointed him. Tex (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved at all! So I have removed tag. Is Connolley to be allowed to hector whoever he feels has not voted in a way in which he approves. Are all of IRC's candidates to be rubber stamped? Can we have an Arb's view on this? Is it worth voting on an IRC RFA in future, or shall we all just smile and ignore as they sail through with 100 votes from those temporarily breaking off from chattering.? Guidance please from an Arb, as it seems Admins are not to be trusted on such matters. Giano (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He's just talking, I don't see that he's made any threats or anything at all. He doesn't agree with your reasoning and is wondering why someone else would. I don't see anything immediately actionable, that is what ANI is (supposed to be) for, and that's why I marked the thread resolved. –xeno ^talk 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not 100% keen on the tone of William's message, but the fact that he's an admin is nothing to do with it, and I think it's below the threshold of when it's worth doing something about something. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire: Xeno had no business marking it resolved! Admins bullying and hectoring and trying to influence the results of future RFAs is very much a matter for this board. Giano (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a certain irony in your accusations of "hectoring" for something that he dropped 6 hours ago, and I get the impression he isn't going to influence Tex much. Just drop it yourself. Go write some articles or something, or even better improve those of Flying Toaster's that you find so deficient. the wub "?!" 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that you attempt to justify Connolly's poor behaviour by comparing it to Giano's. Since when was Giano the benchmark for administrative behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Show me where I tried to justify WMC's behaviour. I'm just trying to quell needless drama, this thread isn't going to achieve anything. the wub "?!" 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me an alternative interpretation of "there's a certain irony in your accusations". The way to quell "needless drama" isn't by using a flamethrower. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I know people that have flamethrowers, we could always try... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Flame away George, if you think you're hard enough. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The internet would be more interesting if Flame wars involved actual flamethrowers--Jac16888^Talk 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Connolley doesn't want to discuss it on his page either and keeps reverting those who do (check history), to his own preferred, if erronious and blinkered, version. Nevermind, I'm sure like number 12 busses another IRC candidate will be along very soon, and Mr Connolley can scream and shout at the opposers again. It seems none of his fellow admins seem to want to rectify the situation - I wonder why? Giano (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you recommend the situation be rectified?--Jac16888^Talk 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the tone of his remarks was combative and ultimately unhelpful. IronDuke 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not admin but I've had a few interactions with them. Watch out how you talk about your disagreements, Always remember Assume Good Faith, this is important for all of us but doubly so for admin. Sometimes it's best to let things go for a few days then pick up the situation later.Again not admin but a friendly suggestion.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• What action do you want Giano? I personally think William Connolley is an intolerant, uncommunicative, unhelpful admin, and that Wikipedia would be best off without him. That at least sets my position clear (and looks like a cop out as well...sigh..sorry about that). I'm not saying the thread is good or bad - but demands for action/rectification need to be a little more precise than just "do something". Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Completely agree. I'm hoping that LessVanU's current reconfirmation RfA will set some sort of standard, but there's nothing can be done here until something like that becomes the norm. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano's attempt to ignite a flamewar seems to have been a bit of a damp squib, so I've had a go myself: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/05/wiki_wars.php William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Connolley, if you want to exhort people to read your ramblings go to Wikipedia Review - they've got a whole crowd there who spend all day doing the same thing. Some suggestions for you;

1. Stop using rollback in situations where non admins would have it removed if they did
2. Respond to people - you're not actually better than the rest of us
3. Stop stiring the pot
4. Back off, take a break and come back when you can add value

Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has had practically zero interaction with these characters, I have just one comment: Both Connolley and Giano should be absolutely ashamed of themselves with the sheer number of complaints that have been lodged against each of them in this and other fora. —Travis^talk 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I find it odd how questioning someone about their opinion in an area that is consensus based on a community that is consensus based is now "hectoring". If you have an opinion, expect it to be questioned, challenged, or the like. If you don't like it, then don't post it. WMC has a lot of real problems, but this is not one of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I had tagged this as resolved, since no administrative action seems to be required. However, although this tagging has been reverted, I'm still unable to see exactly what the point of this wandering and ill-focussed discussion might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of this "wandering and ill-focussed discussion" is for an Admon, Connolley, to be rebuked and made aware that such conduct is unacceptable. The whole of Flying Toaster's RFA was marred by hectoring and badgering of the opposition by those supporting - who knows what the true result may have been - otherwise? Not to mention the "100" or so articles that her supporters claimed she created 9see thread above). All that aside, to further pusue an oppose voter after the RFA has successfully closed smacks of hounding and harassment - are they no longer Wiki-crimes? Giano (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We have such a number of irresponsible juvenile administrators precisely because the bcrats are easily intimidated by folks such as Connolley into rubber stamping their will on the community. This is part of the system that IRC has forced on the English Wikipedia (not on the other language wikipedias, thank god). There is no way to alter this course of development through a mere thread on this noticeboard. English Wikipedia starts to lag behind other wikipedias as regards content; and that's a good sign which may drain some of the stagnant water from this wikipedia rather sooner than later. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most of us Ghirla, like you, that can write to a decent standard in other languages are too coming to that conclusion. Who needs to bothered by a bunch of second rate Admins strutting about supporting a crumbling leadership when one can be far happier on another Wikipedia. It's only looking after the time already invested that keeps many of us here, even occasionally. Giano (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing this thread

Although I know this might be a futile suggestion, might I advise that we close down this thread at this point? There is nothing in WMC's behavior that can be sanctioned by any admin action. If anyone feels that his behvavior needs to be looked into, WP:RFC/U or WP:RFAR are the correct venues to do this. So unless someone can suggest any administrative action that can be used within policy in this case (I fail to see any), I think we should put a resolved tag on this section and advise those who feel the need for action to pursue the appropriate venues for dealing with user conduct. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Marked as close. There's nothing that requires intervention by an admin here. If you're bothered by the comments made then consider following the dispute resolution policy. Please do not disrupt this noticeboard just to make your point please. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coringa (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Coringa (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts dubious information [33] (5x), won't provide a source when asked to, does not communicate, for some strange reason changed my signature to Jimbo Wales [34], he was reverted and warned for doing so, but he did it again [35], he also removed two warning messages from his talk page. Despite those warnings, he continues to make the same violations. He hasn't made any other edits. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned the user on their talk page. If they continues adding uncited information, they should be blocked for a short period of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

67.242.56.62/Spooky873

Hello, I was asked by User: Kingoomieiii to report the actions of User:Spooky873 and his Ip User:67.242.56.62. For more then a year this person has been edit warring Foo Fighters articles to remove the inclusion of Post-grunge from the Genre. As seen from his IP [[36]],[[37]], [[38]]. This has been done against The Consensus that he tried to change with Meat puppets and Socks. His Sock Puppetry case can Be found here. Kingoomieiii lost his cool and started a Flame war on the Ip's talk page that I put a stop too and reported too Alerts. King then asked me to help him and I took in the case after we settled our differences as a neutral third party. However, after looking at the consensus and his actions, I agree he is a disruptive editor. Although I'm not quite sure what can be done. Thanks and happy editing.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed some broken links above; hope you don't mind. To clear up some ambiguous language, I'm pretty sure Skater doesn't mean I'm the disruptive editor. Well, at least I hope not.

In any case, this user is now simply Undoing all my edits to the genres of these pages, and refuses to comment (or even post an edit summary). Long, long history of belligerent edits on talk pages. Some of it may be hard to find, because as a habit, he simply doesn't log in, ever. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 12:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Smanu

Its so sad that I have to start an ANI against this user in such a short time. The user is still doing the same removal of content from The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP) without any explanations and going on edit warring when reverted. He has been warned, explained and told about WP policies like VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOT but still doesnot assume good faith. I keep my faith in administraters to deal about this as I donot want to comment or commit 3RR. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like much of an admin matter yet. I'm not an admin, and have worked with both editors, so I'll give a shot at resolving this and bring it back here if necessary.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan

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

Please note that Keltie reverted 4 times on both the Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe articles in less than 24 hours today.‎ A WP:3rr no no. Admin action must be taken. CADEN ^{is cool} 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please file the report at WP:AN3 with the requisite diffs, etc. –xeno ^talk 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to report yourself too - is there an edit warrring/gaming the system noticeboard, or will this one do? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the specific edits, Keltie changed something the IP did and then Caden reverted, Keltie re-reverted, and back and forth to 3 reversions each.

Keltie's initial change was part of several edits and not a simple "revert" on the IPs edits, though part of it was undoing that specific change last night.

Caden - you have not commented in any of the edit summaries or on any talk page as to why you reverted. One could stretch 3RR to cover her - but typically, we don't, as she didn't "just" revert the IP.

With an equal stretch we can point to your edits as sterile reverts - no edit comments, no talk page comments - and please be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement, but a hard limit.

Please take this to the article talk pages and explain yourself. Failure to WP:AGF and sterile revert warring with someone, reporting them to ANI after a sterile revert war, these are not good things. You really don't want admins to take action here. Trust me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Both given 24h to think about it. —Travis^talk 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Username reminds me of former arbitrator User:Kelly Martin. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And User:Caden is now requesting an unblock so if anyone wishes to review the blocks, feel free to do so. Thanks —Travis^talk 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Note: I am copying the following statement from User talk:KeltieMartinFan ([39]), as requested by KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs):

I have reasons to believe that Caden (talk · contribs) has some unsettling grudge against me which stemmed from an incident that occurred on this noticeboard two-and-a-half weeks ago. Therefore as a way to get back at me, he puts his hands on certain articles which, up until that particular point, he has no particular interest in, but are of my personal interest nonetheless. I believe that he is only doing this simply as a way to get under my skin. The incident from 2.5 weeks ago did not fall in his favor, and I think the bitterness of all that still lingers with him to this very day apparently.

He left a comment on my talk page shortly after the forum closed on that particular incident saying ‘’I will be watching you closely.’’ In my opinion, the way he wrote this particular comment on my talk page, it came off as if he was going to plan some type of personal revenge against me the next time I did any type of edit on Wikipedia, constructive or not. It’s one thing to keep an eye on a particular editor to see if he/she does anything that constitute a violation on here. But to keep what appears to be a 24-hour surveillance on a certain editor, and react to almost every single edit he/she makes, even if it is a justifiable one, that comes off, simply put it, as one particular editor planning a personal vendetta on another particular editor. If I’m not mistaken, that would be grounds of violation under the Wikipedia:Civility guidelines on the part of the perpetrating editor.

As for this current incident at hand, ‘’Caden’’ has been doing edits on one of my particular article of interest as of lately, the Deal or No Deal (US) models. While the edits he put on this article does come off as constructive, it does not excuse the fact that he has never touched this article ever until May 8, 2009. The only reason I suspect that he is doing it now is because of me and the whole initial incident 2.5 weeks earlier.

The Deal or No Deal article is only one of three articles of my own interested that ‘’Caden’’ has been messing with so far. The other two are Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe, talk-show personalities for The Today Show on NBC. I made edits on these two articles only because facts on these two articles were not entirely correct, and I simply wanted to make them exactly so. Shortly after I make this minor corrective edits, ‘’Caden’’ would come in and revert virtually all corrections I made back to the original “not-entirely” correct facts. This has been going on three times in the last 24-hours.

And to add insult to injury, he gave me this warning[[40]] for this edit war that he himself started. I did not even go past four reverted as he stated.

Once again, this is all stemming back from an incident that happened 2.5 weeks ago. To say the very least, I am very disappointed that this particular editor has been carried on this grudge against me for as long as he did. ‘’Caden’’ has a recent history of uncivility towards other editors than myself. I strongly recommended an administrator hand some type of warning down for his incivility against me. I do not get involved in ‘’Caden’s’’ personal interest here on wikipedia whether it’s Major League Soccer, Penthouse or anything pertaining to the adult film industry because they are of no interest to me. I do have respect for others editors and interest in these particular articles, and will not mingle in their businesses. Apparently, ‘’Caden’’ cannot do the same for others. It’s very unfortunate it has to come to this. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

— Aitias // discussion 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's true that Caden is engaged in what might better be termed as WP:HARASSMENT - and I'm not saying it is true, but if it is - then the factually incorrect 3RR violation complaint could be part of that pattern. Caden's incivility is, of course, a long-standing problem. I would like to point out that a few weeks ago, Caden warned me to stop watching his user talk page. Not to just stay off it, but also to stop watching it. So I stopped watching it, in case he's monitoring my keystrokes. But I can still watch other user talk pages. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On review - Caden has not edited those two articles before today, and KeltieMartinFan has done so regularly for some time.

I am concerned that this constitutes wikihounding - editor with a personal grudge, articles they have never edited before, a sterile edit war...

I'm going to initiate a discussion with Caden on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This shows Caden's animosity towards Keltie. As usual, Caden complains about a user being a bully, and he goes on to threaten to kick Keltie's ass. If I didn't have a background with Caden, I'd unblock Keltie without reservation as it seems obvious he did this specifically to bother Keltie. Frankly, I don't think Caden is an asset to the project at all. AniMate^draw 23:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Caden has also been vocal in the controversy at Carrie Prejean, which used to be a redirect to DoND before the whole Miss USA kerfuffle. So while I suspect, both from the Robach and Wolfe edits and from what I've observed of his actions in the places we've crossed paths before, that he's hounding KeltieMartinFan, it's at least possible that he started editing the DoND article innocently. John Darrow (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

as I have no history at all with either user that I can recall, and no concern with the topic, I did the unblock on KMF, saying "per AN/I." It seems clear enough what is going on, but i leave it to further discussion whether a longer block on the other editor is appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(self-reply) On the other hand, the sudden arrival of User:Corpiestre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (contributions), whose immediate and only purpose is to complain on other users' talk pages about how Caden was treated, reeks so much of block evasion that it will make it very hard to ever again WP:AGF with Caden. SPI/CU, anyone? John Darrow (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

More likely it's another sock of the User:Fondesep and User:Horneldinkrag family, whose puppetmaster has yet to be identified. Trying to implicate Caden would be the M.O. of the guy who tried to implicate User:Axmann8 a month or two ago. That doesn't mean they're the same one, though, as there is no shortage of weirdness on the internet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The tone of those posts doesnt sound like Caden to me. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that Caden retires or gets a perm block by the end of the week. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What, again? But you're right, he's really pushing the envelope this week. On the other hand, the impostor turned out to be an old "pal", the latest entry in the Pioneer Courthouse sockfarm, maybe trying to branch out a bit from the rut he was in. Speaking of dollars to donuts, that reminds me: Did you hear the rumor that Krispy Kremes may soon be declared a drug, due to their effective use against hypoglycemia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

500 cc's of Raspberry frosted! Stat! Personally, I have porterhouse steak deficiency. Gotta get my doc to write me a prescription....Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden was vindicated at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caden/Archive. The sock isn't his, and as I said before on his talk page, that's not his style. — Becksguy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Unintentional Outing

Resolved

 – Per Mishlai. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful if an admin would review my actions here[41], take further action to strip information out of the history as necessary, or tell me if I'm wrong. Thank you. Mishlai (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also taken action at the user's talk page. Mishlai (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider this matter resolved. Thank you. Mishlai (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

IP request

An IP, who claims to be User:br4011, recently posted this request. Obvious sockpuppetry, of course. I am forwarding it here:

"Sir, I done a Wrong in a bymistake. for that Amalthea blocked my Account. Sir mother promise i'll not do this mistake anymore. Please forgive me and Please unblock my Account. I'am Asking Unblock Request for 1 week there not doing any thing. Please forgive and unblock me. I'll not Upload any imges without your or other Adminstration Help. Please unblock me sir.

br4011 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.47.245 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) "

The only interaction I've had with that user is leaving a welcome template on their page, so I don't know why they think I'd be able to do anything, but here it is. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then Azviz (talk · contribs) (the apparent sockmaster) needs to make his unblock request on his own talk page and not play these games by posting as an IP disguised as Esasus (talk · contribs) (a sock of Azviz via CU and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive). MuZemike 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps can someone of the CheckUser variety see if Br4011 = Azviz? We have the IP. MuZemike 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, the IP (aka br4011 (talk · contribs)) copy & pasted the signature from the post directly below, which was from Esasus (talk · contribs), and did not fix both links to point to his user & talk page. He didn't use tildes since he wasn't logged in. From all the behavior and contributions I see, they are not the same user. Amalthea 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no similarities in behavior, and I was just going to post about the copy and paste thing. Esasus socks will likely be voting to keep on tons on articles left and right on very shoddy reasons, adding sources that fail WP:RS standards to demonstrate notability, being very aggressive towards anyone who disagrees, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...or push for the deletion of a bunch of clearly notable articles and sometimes through PROD. In any case, thanks for the clarification. MuZemike 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

IP puppet show (my oh my)

Levine2112 has been using IP socks recently[42] [43][44][45][46] and claims the text says nothing about Mysticism.

Levine2112 made this edit and the IP sock made this edit. See Talk:Chiropractic#Mysterious IP reverts for more evidence.

(diff) 01:07, 9 May 200918:00 The IP 166.191.166.100: Here the IP sock claims before Levine2112 disputed the text... Undocumented claim.

(diff) 01:29, 9 May 2009 by Levine2112: Here Levine2112 makes the same claim as the IP 166.191.166.100 and... Reverted to revision 288781918 by 166.191.166.100; actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk. using TW Levine claims the text is somehow not verifed but it is faithfully sourced. It was a very strange claim Levine2112 made that strangely enough the same claim was made by the IP. These two edits[47][48] can't be a coincidence.

The text is faithfully sourced "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today." See Talk:Chiropractic history#Mystical ideas sourced.

Levine2112 has been given plenty of second chances[49] [50] and has been previously banned from chiropractic. See User talk:Levine2112/archive10#One week ban from Chiropractic and related talk pages. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's proper procedure to notify a user when initiating a thread about them. I've gone ahead and let Levine2112 know about it. — Ched :  ?  05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe User:QuackGuru is looking for this page rather than AN/I. Unomi (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the {{sockpuppeteer}} template from the user page User:Levine2112 per WP:AGF and the fact that a WP:SPI report has not even been filed. I've also posted a note of it on the users talk page per WP:BRD. I understand that there is a history between QG and Levine at Chiropractic, but this looks more like a content dispute, and proper procedure should be followed. If someone is truly convinced that Levine is misusing the edit privileges, then a Check User should be requested, and the SPI should go from there. — Ched :  ?  07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

and the puppet show continues. QuackGuru also accused me of being a sockpuppet. [51] My reply here included this from WP:Sockpuppet Fishing – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to.. But, I saw today that QuackGuru has been a busy boy: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. QuackGuru put those IPSocks on those accounts on May 10, and never said a word to me. I checked and saw that he has never filed anything on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations. Same kind of crap that he is pulling with Levine. No filing of an actual SockInvestigation request, just a lot of notices everywhere that we are sockpuppets. How do I spell HARASSMENT. I looked at QuackGuru's block logand I see that he is quite skilled at creating trouble.

QuackGuru, I gave you the link to WP:Sockpuppet_investigations. Unomi gave you the link. You know where it is. Why haven't you filed anything there? Is it because you don't want them checking your IP against all these new IPs ?

--stmrlbs|talk 08:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that Quackguru did not just put a sockpuppet on Levine's talkpage, but that he completely blanked out Levine2112's User page twice, [59][60]and replaced it with a big Sockpuppet accusation, even though QuackGuru had filed no WP:SPI report. This is another example of overt WP:Harassment. QuackGuru seems to get off on this kind of behavior. --stmrlbs|talk 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

Human rights in the United States and Talk:Human rights in the United States has been under the grip of a civil POV pushing campaign for several years. Neutral administrators are invited to monitor both pages (especially the talk page) and offer help with dispute resolution. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rare to see someone actually admit to it. Then again, asking "sourcesplz" for everything as a means of shutting out allegations of bias is often a common tactic used by regulars to push a POV (asserting the uncontested opinion of a few academics as fact is common too). Sources only go so far, and then it's up to common sense. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please describe the solution you are proposing and its implementation. An editor on the talk page is pushing the POV that "the human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine [sic] stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement". Yet, there are no RS that make that claim; it is only the opinion of the editor, an opinion that has led this editor to delete reliably sourced content from the article and repeatedly add the NPOV dispute tag because his opinion is not represented in the article. This "niche POV" is not "well known information"; it doesn't exist in the literature. Furthermore, the editor(s) keep adding the NPOV dispute tag to the article. This has been going on for several years with the same editors showing up, disappearing, and then showing up again. The user names are different, but the the behavior is exactly the same. Is this the kind of "common sense" that you support? Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The common sense is that a blind devotion to sources above anything else is often the enemy of what is best. Remember, NOR doesn't apply to talkspace, and thus criticism of the sources and resulting content is allowed, even if said criticism does not appear in academic or scientific literature. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any of that on the talk page, so I don't know where you are coming from here. What I see is a group of editors who 1) edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme, and these editors 2) attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories - pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like, and 3) revert war over such edits, and 4) frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information 5) argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy, and 6) argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability, and 7) repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times, and 8) hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV, and who 8) often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors (note the link to three AfD's below). This has been going on for several years and can be confirmed in the talk archives and page history, and has been reported here several times. Sceptre, your position on this particular issue seems to be out of touch, as demonstrated in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that was primarily about AfD's role for neutrality problems, not about whether the article is neutral or not. I should point out that CPUSH is an essay which was written and used the most often by a bunch of users who are known to accuse regular editors, including admins, of trying to include fringe sources. The main problem with NPOV is that most people who accuse others of including fringe sources people tend to take it to mean "majority/scientific/academia point of view", when the two are explicitly not the same (MPOV would require Creationism to say it's a crock of shit, whereas NPOV does not). While they may be pushing one way, I should point out that you're pushing too far in another. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Representing the best sources on the topic is not POV pushing. It's called writing an encyclopedia article, and this requires representing views that we may not share or agree with. In order to get to this point, however, one has to do the work researching the subject and actually try to understand the topic. Unfortunately, the people complaining about this article aren't interested in the topic. They are only interested in pushing their personal POV, which is often based on poor or nonexistent sources, or outright distortions. I've requested neutrality issues to be brought to the table so we can eliminate them from the article. Since you find the article problematic, perhaps you could make a short list of problems that you see. Of course, if you are offering new material to be added, I would expect sources to go along with it. Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am saying this as a general problem with regular editors. Applied to the article, I believe that most of it is neutral. However, there are a few snags with the article. The Katrina section needs more citations; the whole first half of the first paragraph is unsourced, including a quote by a living person. Sorensen's quote needs context as to when and why it was said, and the whole waterboarding section needs copyediting. And finally, the Gitmo section needs a massive overhaul, because the whole section is all over the place, some facts don't have citation, etc. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I fear that Sceptre is perilously close to using the words "IDcabal", after which all prospect of useful outcome from this thread will evaporate - so let me intervene. It looks like this is a case where a specific content dispute has gotten into a back-and-forth between two editors. The best role we can play is to provide outside views on the content issue (and, perhaps, any behavioral issues) at the article talk page. Sceptre, since you've obviously given some thought to the article content and sourcing, perhaps you could comment there with the aim of helping to resolve this particular content dispute? I'll try to do the same. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:NJGW

Unresolved

 – You are advised to follow the dispute resolution process, ie WP:WQA or WP:RFC. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:NJGW has repeatedly misused warning templates and personally attacked me on my talk page. [61][62][63] Furthermore, the user is complaining about two edits, one of which [64] has had consensus since February. [65] It seems to me that if the user is having problems with such an old edit, he or she should discuss them on the article's talk page, not a user's talk page.

Additionally, the user has a history of severely violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, and WP:RS on Talk:Late-2000s recession. He or she has labeled my edits as "cruft" [66], "misinformation" [67], "dishonest", "mistakes" [68], "deceptive" [69], and "fear mongering" [70]. User:NJGW has also repeatedly told me to not edit the article any more [71][72] and exhibited ownership of it [73]. In the end, I grew tired of challenging his or her ownership of the article and stopped editing it for months.

I request that User:NJGW be banned from editing my talk page until he or she can demonstrate understanding of the core Wikipedia policies that I have mentioned above. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh. JCD loves SYN and got mad a while ago that I corrected a section he wrote to say what the sources actually reported and to reflect actual consensus of sources. Last night JCD inserted syn once again into the article [74] which I removed and asked him not to do (again), to which JCD responded by calling me a vandal (again) on his and my talk page [75][76]. I told him that explaining SYN to him was not unconstructive, a message which he labeled vandalism (again). I told him to stop misusing warning templates, so he came here. JCD has a long history of doing this and misunderstanding SYN and VANDALISM (eg [77]). Good luck trying to explain it to him. I'm off for the week. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are advised to follow the dispute resolution process. You've provided no links that you've attempted this already, so I'm archiving and suggesting you take to a more appropriate forum, ie WP:WQA or WP:RFC. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nja247, thank you. I will try at one of those noticeboards. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, by "corrected", you mean you completely misrepresented what the sources I used said and demonstrated ownership of the article. Again, if you feel that a contribution that has had consensus for months is synthesis, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Furthermore, giving three talk page warnings for one edit is not constructive. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and NJGW has a long history of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. [78][79][80][81][82] JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bryankreutz 77

Ran across a couple of image uploads from User:Bryankreutz 77 that seemed to be incorrectly tagged. I notified them on talk, they deleted it and I restored with an admonition not to ignore the message as it concerned copyright violations. Digging into their file upload history, ([83]), nearly all seem suspect. Mostly arcade marquees and arcade game screenshots, tagged either PD or GFDL - which is patently false as copyright resides with the manufacturers/developers. Can someone go through and delete their uploads and warn them against repeating this? Exxolon (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rationale of fair use for screenshots added to video game images. Thank you --Bryankreutz 77 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tycoon24

User: Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made numerous personal attacks against me, see [84] and [85]. I can take it, but after his article was deleted [86] with near unanimous consent it seems Tycoon24 has gone beyond the personal attacks to pointy vandalism. If you take a look at the deletion review page you can see he was very very very passionate about the article, and if you look at his contributions you can see him inserting links and mentions to the article in many other articles, he also started a merge discussion, which you can see here [87]. Following the deletion he has posted an interesting diatribe on his talk and user page [88], but that is not the issue here, all that is some background, and with the exception of the personal attacks on me, nothing worthy of administrators time or effort.

What is though is his recent move of the Tea Party protests article to Very Stupid Article, with the edit summary "Because it is. Delete it." .. I am not sure how to post the diff of that move, but its real. When another user told him to calm down a bit, Tycoon responded by deleting the friendly comment with an edit summary "I don't care anymore. Wikipedia sucks. If it won't comply to its own rules. Fuck it." [89]. I bring this to ANI so that others can weigh in, look at the history, and see if a block is in order to allow Tycoon time to calm down, and prevent any further disruptions to the project. Thanks for your time, PS, sorry if at the time of this posting others have already raised the issue elsewhere, but there is a database error for me when posting. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar give it a rest. I'm leaving Wikipedia anyway. Thanks to you. Not only do I feel threatened on a daily basis with insults, off-the-wall attacks, and become a victim of biased attacks against me, I'm done. This is ridiculous. I hope the community is somehow at a benefit from your contributions, because you sure do know how to get rid of others who have an opinion different from your own. YOU are the the cause of my frustration, and YOU have caused me to become overwhelmingly pissed off at Wikipedia. If it were not for editors like yourself (and your gang of editors who follow you), this place would be much better off. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is just ONE example of many, many others:

You are jumping to the assumption that the protestors have a coherent issue, message, or meaning. Most likely it is a collection of racist and republicans (and some racist republicans). Republicans who are upset that they lost the last election, and racists who are upset that now there is a black man in the white house. 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)

Interesting perspective. Any other comments on your ability to responsibly edit articles related to the tea parties in a unbiased, encyclopedic manner?

I have no integrity, haven't you realized that? On this issue I'm pretty sure I never directly called you a "teabagger". TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then...

...Quick!! There is no implication that this is an opinion held by any other teabaggers, but the arrest is directly related to the event. Wired is also reporting about the arrest of the teabagger [90]. We need to make sure that we don't give undue weight to this, but there should be some inclusion in the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a double standard? Tycoon24 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 20

(outdent) So, you moved an article to make a WP:POINT? Is that not disruption? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is just ONE example of many, many others:

You are jumping to the assumption that the protestors have a coherent issue, message, or meaning. Most likely it is a collection of racist and republicans (and some racist republicans). Republicans who are upset that they lost the last election, and racists who are upset that now there is a black man in the white house. 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)

Interesting perspective. Any other comments on your ability to responsibly edit articles related to the tea parties in a unbiased, encyclopedic manner?

I have no integrity, haven't you realized that? On this issue I'm pretty sure I never directly called you a "teabagger". TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then...

...Quick!! There is no implication that this is an opinion held by any other teabaggers, but the arrest is directly related to the event. Wired is also reporting about the arrest of the teabagger [91]. We need to make sure that we don't give undue weight to this, but there should be some inclusion in the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a double standard? Tycoon24 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 20

Another GREAT example of exactly what Wikipedia has shown me to be (besides Mishlai, who is the only positive editor I have ever run into):

I am writing this message to you as a notice of my withdrawal from Wikipedia following the recent events/edits on the CNN and Susan Roesgen pages – events that you were involved in. Never in all of my years in academia (the better part of a decade) have I been privy to such patently-insincere and downright academically-fraudulent work as that which I have encountered on Wikipedia.

While I was initially willing to set aside all of the negative things I had heard about Wikipedia in an effort to contribute to a seemingly beneficial project, the actions of editors and administrators on the Susan Roesgen and CNN pages has made it eminently clear that “scholarship” and Wikipedia truly are mutually exclusive – propaganda has carried the day.

My failure to grace the project with some actual academically-sound work was not made in vain; with every neutral editor that you drive out of the project with your blatantly POV-pushing agenda, you further bolster your reputation as nothing but an unreliable propaganda board. Your reputation for unreliability was perhaps best captured in a recent statement made by my corporations professor: “I decided to make myself more ignorant on the topic by looking at the article (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) on Wikipedia.”

I strongly encourage you to alter your course, set aside your agenda, and reverse your – and Wikipedia’s – reputation as a laughing stock. This will not only benefit the public in general, but will, I submit, actually make you feel better about yourself. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The best part is the response by Loonymonkey 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) -- "Haha, okay. Whatever. No loss."

PAs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These gangs of editors will show you out-of-context link after link to somehow prove they are above the person they insult. They will show the end result, how the editor they have repeatedly attacked is "out of control" or "attacking" others; when in reality, these guys caused this shit to happen. editors like TharsHammar and Loonymonkey have ruined Wikipedia for countless other editors. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is one of several incidents involving Tycoon24 and edit warring. The recent rant posted here and on his user page makes it all-but impossible to assume good faith when it comes to this editor. It's too bad he/she couldn't work more constructively with others & appears to be very invested in Wikipedia.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another "brave conservative trying to swim against the tide of eeeeevil Wiki-liberals, trying to go out in a blaze of glory. Vandalizing page moves, petty insults, and soapboxing is certainly worthy of a block. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tycoon24, are the repetition of personal attacks really needed again on this page? I provided a link to the material that you posted here, there is no need to repeat it. Could an uninvolved party please delete or collopase the tangential personal attacks by Tycoon24? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having spent a little time trying to mediate this, it is my opinion that the problem lies primarily with Tycoon24's editing. The diffs above from Thars are real but are also the worst that can be found in a very long and heated discussion in which Thars generally remained calm, stuck to policy, and discussed the article. Tycoon24 is clearly close to the material in the article, and inexperienced with Wikipedia as well. I have tried to offer some form of mentorship, but it seems mostly to have been drowned out by disappointment at not getting the results he/she wanted for the article. Whether or not Tycoon24 can become a good contributor at Wikipedia will depend entirely upon his/her willingness to be civil with others and accept that no one gets to have exactly what they want in very controversial articles.

Only Tycoon24 can tell us whether such a realization and change of behavior might be forthcoming. I hope that it is, because I like to see people contributing to the project, but if a change is not produced then what we will have here is disruption. Mishlai (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tophatted the PAs in this thread and blocked Tycoon24 48 hours for page move vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock-b-gone

Hi folks. Can someone cast an eye over Truthforlife (talk · contribs), who has spent some part of today harassing Novangelis (talk · contribs) and is now repeatedly templating me for "trolling" because I denied an AIV block request or something. I'm sure there was an earlier sockfarm with this MO, but can't quite dredge the information out of my brain; nevertheless, I think an application of sock-b-gone^TM or troll-b-gone^TM powder would be useful. Then I can go back to my wikibreak. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthforlife made the question a little bit simpler by replacing her talk page with a legal threat, so I blocked indef under WP:LEGAL. It would still be useful to figure out the answer to this question... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I could've just waited and she'd've done something egregious and rendered the entire thing moot. Thanks, FQ! I'm still sure there was a sockfarm like this, though... I'll ask Novangelis if they remember it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The style matches a series from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kyleain (3rd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Unbiaseduser, and Suspected sock puppets/Lunasblade. Novangelis (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the abuse filter be modified to automatically block any editor whose username contains the words "truth", "bias", or "accuracy" right off the bat? The baseline probability of such accounts being agenda-driven sockpuppets is certainly high enough to justify such a heuristic on Bayesian grounds. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough fresh evidence for a further CU to check for further socks based on the above patterns? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It could possibly placed in the NBC NameWatcher Bots, where it could be reported to UAA for having a disruptive username. However, I think that would be stretching it. MuZemike 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Until "GreatAuntRuth" or "RabbiAsher" come along and complain that their usernames are being rejected without a good reason. At a past job of mine, a filter on "gamble" took out a lot of spam - but in the process, also blocked email from a coach at another school in the conference, whose last name just happened to be Gamble. John Darrow (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the probability of such accounts being agenda-driven sockpuppets is a good reason not to block them on sight. That way the socks make themselves easy to identify, rather than forcing them to use names that make them harder to detect. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A more recent sockpuppetry case (with the truth theme, no less) was Godlovestruth (talk · contribs) & Dji19165 (talk · contribs). Novangelis (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SPA/COI accounts editing on Philippine showbiz-related articles

OK, it seems as though User:Danngarcia had to deal with some fan accounts of which their usernames suggest that they only concentrate in adding potentially COI/POV edits on showbiz-related articles, as shown here. Can someone help me and my mates with this? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can, although there's not really much I personally could do. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Malformed link

Um. I don't know if this goes here, but here it goes. The banner at the top of every project regarding the licensing poll links to a page "Licensing update/Result" specific to that project instead of pointing towards Meta-Wiki ([92] Spanish Wikipedia, for example links there). I caught it a minute or two after it happened and created a soft redirect from Licensing update/Result to the page at Meta. I know this isn't the norm, but until its fixed I think that will suffice. I also asked for it to be page protected, via IRC, because before I redirected it someone else had created the page and added a huge image to it... Hopefully what I did is acceptable. I just didn't know where to post to let people know about this problem (I never use Meta, and wouldn't know where to put this message on there where it would get seen quickly), and I'm about to go to bed. Killiondude (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now — vvv (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Genocides in history

Resolved. Page procted by Sandstein (talk · contribs). C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please look at the article genocides in history, and see if the revert war there warrants page protection. --PBS (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, protected. This may also require A/A arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

Can someone help please!!! C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clear. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

- blocked for 31 hours. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User 62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs): Constantly adding unsourced plot details to Ashes to Ashes (TV series) and adding unsourced titles to List of Ashes to Ashes episodes, as well as other edits for which he has received warnings. Despite being given multiple warninsg and a last warning with regards to both Ashes to Ashes articles, the user continues to vandalise the article with the same unsourced additions. magnius (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano II blocked for civility issues

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough is enough. Giano has left, there's no consensus here to block Xeno. Further action against Xeno would take a RfC or RFAR against him. This discussion has devolved into a shitstorm of personal attacks, incivility and general drama. Move on to editing the encyclopedia, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Archiving. Giano has left, nothing to be done there. Move on, mission accomplished for some. Go write some FAs.

Xeno's section, however, remains open, as it appears he may have baited Giano in some weird Flying Toaster retaliation. Admins will need to sort that out. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember that Giano has left and scrambled his password before, so I shouldn't archive this. _→AzaToth 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno

So, what are we going to do about Xeno, is his behaviour in this matter going to be addressed or completely ignored ? Nick (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Err, let me look into my crystal ball ... the mists are clearing. I see that Xeno is an administrator; his behaviour is therefore beyond reproach. Mild trout slap at worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins can be blocked as readily as any other user for a policy violation; we as admins have no special protection vs. blocks. One admin was just blocked 9 days for edit warring. If two users create an equal offense, one an admin and one not, both must receive equal blocks if blocks are given. The admin is not More Special. rootology (C)(T) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The size (and contents) of AMIB's block log is atrocious. Majorly talk 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That only happens once an admin gets sanctioned by ArbCom. After that everyone starts piling on, about 10 times harder than any random guy, like any ArbCom-sanctioned user. Apart from, that admins are above the law. I can think of some who got congratulated by the AC for their admin work even though they insult people on a daily basis and block immediately after reverting. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since Xeno was apparently deliberately provoking Giano, he/she should be blocked for at least half as long as Giano was. Yes, it's a punitive block, but Xeno's behavior needs to be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's punitive, what's the point? Just to rub his nose in it? Majorly talk 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since ArbCom lately has been making a lot of noise about how important it is for administrators to model good behavior and to be held to a higher standard because of their elevated status in the community, it seems to me that xeno is actually more culpable here, since he provoked the incident and is an administrator. Giano is "just" an editor, and presumably not required to be held to those extra high standards we demand of administrators.Woonpton (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Xeno's "improvement" edits, and the fact he seemed to then change his mind afterwards, it seems fairly obvious even to a deaf, dumb, blind pinball wizard that the edits, whilst seemingly plausible were nothing more than an attempt at baiting Giano - which unfortunately, he fell for. It's quite sad and utterly pathetic. Minkythecat (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Block Xeno!? Xeno doesn't even want Giano blocked for goodness sake! So why block Xeno, risk losing a bloody good sysop and editor? This whole thread is just plain madness.... John Sloan @ 00:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if he/she had mentioned it here as well as their talk page all this drama could have been avoided. Ah well! Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My memory may be fading, but I vaguely recall that one of the Giano sanctions also forbade editors from baiting or provoking Giano. [96] isn't exactly non-provoking. Gimmetrow 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_further_enforcement, "Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee." Since the block mentions past "incivility" this seems to be related to the civility parole. Was there written agreement of the arbs? Gimmetrow 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Both irrelevant on face and expired. This isn't a civility parole issue, xeno wasn't the blocking admin.--Tznkai (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the block. Everyone knows that blocking Giano leads to problems. It would be reasonable admin behaviour to ask and get feedback first, and WP:AE is probably more likely to get better-than-kneejerk responses than is WP:ANI. Gimmetrow 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• No one is blocking Xeno over this. Lex talionis in specific and retributive justice in general isn't done on Wikipedia because it is a really counter productive policy. Xeno is however, expected to explain his troubling edits, and I hope he has a good explanation of why this thing that looks like malicious baiting isn't.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If two users (pick two, doesn't matter) display the same inappropriate behavior and one of those users is an admin...the admin will get a "trout slap" and the non-admin user will get a block? Seriously? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already opined at length that blocking Giano was the wrong call to begin with. I am not going to compound the error by blocking someone else in some misguided attempt at evening by distribution of misery.--Tznkai (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• So Xeno is simply required to explain, while the target of his undeniably provocative behaviour is blocked? Does that seem equitable to you? It sure as hell doesn't seem that way to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Equitable isn't really my goal, because when you pursue equality over say, justice (getting what they deserve) or fairness (getting what they need), you tend to do stupid things. (That man only has one kidney. I will remove one kindey from all other men so that they may be equal). He is expected to explain, and that explanation will make clear what should be done next.--Tznkai (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Equitable is not a synonym for equality, just as "well-dressed" is not synonymous with "immaculately dressed". If I had meant to use the word "equality" then I would have done so. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can I propose we award the "I hope you are proud of your baiting"-award, and subsequently slap him with a large trout ? His behaviour was truly not helpful either. Pushing people over the edge is not something we should be engaging ourselves in. Although in my opinion, this was an unavoidable situation. Had it not been Xeno, it would have been someone else within the next month. Although in general we should not treat people differently, it is clear that community patience had ran out for Giano (it actually did long ago, but we are a community with high tolerances and many appeal systems), Xeno has not yet reached that point however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was making good faith edits to tone down what I saw as slightly over-the-top language - Giano suggested I take a stab at it. Some other editors pointed out how a some changes were slightly askew. I hadn't contributed to the above because it begun after I logged off. Please unblock Giano, his comments didn't bother me; but he perhaps could have been more clear what he didn't like about my suggestions. –xeno ^talk 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did he invite you to do so? Because as far as I can tell, you mentioned the particular article that giano had been working on in an unrelated noticeboard thread, then your next edit less than a minute later was to edit it. I'm sure you can see why I am troubled.--Tznkai (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here. Giano was the one who suggested Xeno edit it. Majorly talk 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But the edits I am concerned with occured 33 minutes earlier--Tznkai (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice my mainspace edits often float all over the place. This is because I follow links on whims and try to improve them wherever I can. As I said it seemed slightly over-the-top ("immaculate") and it didn't have a ref (where I edit leads have lots of refs), so I thought toning it down was appropriate. –xeno ^talk 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me spell this out then. At 14:19 you made your first comment on the Flying Toaster thread on the Bureaucrats noticeboard. Followed by 14:48 17:31 18:38 and finally 19:20 Giano had made his first comment at 06:49 and commented throughout the thread. Most notably 18:58 Where he said "This has now gone beyond the ridiculous: You talk of a re-run. 100 people have just voted for an Admin (known as Boriss on IRC) who is hardly known at all on Wikipedia, who is so unused to Wikipedia that she did not even know it was wrong to coptpaste other people's work onto Wikipedia and claim it as her own. Those same people who supported her RFA now have the audacity to argue now in her defence. You insult everyone who has ever spent more than an hour writing a page. This project is sick - really sick. I suggest that those of you who do not see this as wrong, very wrong, fuck off back to IRC or wherever it is you came from and stay there; leave writing this encyclopedia to those that care about it and are prepared to do some real work to prove it." Following Prodego's comment you replied "Indeed, you've made your point Giano. Perhaps you should take your advice... You are doing the good countess a disservice spending so much time on this." at 19:20 One minute later at 19:21, you edited the Raine Spencer article (a BLP for goodness sake), the same article you linked above as "good countess", for the first time in your wiki career.

This establishes that 1. You were involved in a heated dispute where you and Giano were in some amount of dispute 2. You were aware of Giano's contributions to the article 3. You mentioned this article specifically to Giano in the midst of that dispute 4. Immediately after mentioning it to Giano, who you were in conflict with, you began editing the article, and 5. This all happened before Giano told you to improve the article. If you were a redlink, we would immediately conclude you were baiting Giano. It certainly could appear to an outsider you were doing so. Regardless of your intentions, which I assume are good and not malicious, doing something that looks so much like baiting is not something a wise or reasonable editor would do. Certainly, after the fact you should be able to stare at the bare evidence and realize your mistake.--Tznkai (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I was acting in good faith (the language did seem a little much, and lack of citing with some arguably contentious statements seemed off for a BLP), I see your point in that it could appear as if I meant to provoke - I did not. In hindsight, it was probably not a wise move. –xeno ^talk 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a bemused outsider looking in, it appears there is a significant problem: an admin and a non-admin indulge in silly behavior, but the non-admin gets blocked for a couple of weeks but the non-admin is allowed to edit with nary a wrist slap? Either someone has to get unblocked or someone else has to get blocked -- the split-level justice is more than a little peculiar and it leaves a sour residue for those who subscribe to the notion that adminship is no big deal. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Block them both or block neither. لennavecia 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I never wanted Giano blocked; it is unfortunate that he was for comments made at me, just a humble wikignome. I'd suggest unblocking. However, if blocking me in return will make things right, so be it. –xeno ^talk 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would just be a punishment. What you ought to do is to apologise and to unblock Giano. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I considered unblocking but I don't think it would be appropriate; I'm involved, Prodego specifically stated on my talk page he would object to unblocking, and I also have a gut feeling it wouldn't be well-received by the recipient (his dispute partner being the one to let him out of the penalty box, so to speak). My feelings weren't hurt in the least. I've asked Prodego to unblock, but I believe he is offline. Perhaps another admin can review whether unblocking based on the circumstances is the best thing to do. –xeno ^talk 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

After very much consideration I have unblocked giano. I know this will be unpopular, I know this is out of process but I also consider myself uninvolved. I have read all above but given the circumstances of the RfA and xeno following to a new article I feel the block is already more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrible idea. TERRIBLE. Did you review the block history? Did you read the blocked comment? Terrible idea. But I won't wheel war. I would be prepared to defend it though, if I were you. - Philippe 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, unpopular is one word. Out of process and out of consensus are more. Did you read any of the discussion below? I'm always amazed at people that unblock in these circumstances without any discussion with the blocking admin at all. This isn't votes for unblock you know. Please revert your unblock, thanks. RxS (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Break

• There are ALOT of people who are saying "block Xeno" or "unblock Giano". Talk is cheap, actions speak. So, can someone actually do something instead of talk about doing something? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Xeno would be against our blocking policy, unblocking Giano against consensus is also against our policies. You want something done, martial some consensus, or convince the blocking admin to change his mind (which I have been trying to do.--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Many editors are blocked against your beloved policies, so I don't see why unblocking is so very different. WP:IAR and all that jazz? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case Giano was blocked before discussion. What if someone blocked Xeno first and then tried to determine if there was a consensus to unblock? Gimmetrow 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care which you do. Block both or have both unblocked....but something needs to be done because at the moment you have two editors who exhibited the same behavior and one get one punishment and one got the other and because the other is an admin, it looks like preferential treatment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being considered as rude: will some admin (and I assume they are reading this) either unblock Giano or block Xeno or present Wikipedia with an honorary Tony Award for drama? This situation is veering into to the nonsensical. We really need to stop talking and resolve this mess. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you and the rest would like me to bell the cat? --Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like you to act like a man, not like a mouse. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're so adamant about fixing the situation, find something you can do about it, and fix it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an unblock button, but if I did I wouldn't be at all hesitant to use it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• How about something more fitting - since Giano is gone, Xeno will be forced to work in creating content and only creating content until Giano comes back. No talk page use unless its for collaboration, no use of the tools, and his edits must be furthering the development of pages to GA/FA level. We did lose a content contributor by his actions, so the only way to redeem the encyclopedia is to force him to pick up the slack. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are 1,600 admins, yes? Not counting Tznkai and Xeno, can one of the remaining 1,588 admins please resolve this situation? Thank you! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much to resolve. The block of Giano is within policy and very much appropriate. It has been endorsed by several users and does not depend on whether any action is or is not taken against Xeno. If Giano wants to contest the block, he is free to do so. There's nothing that needs to be done. --auburnpilot talk 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Leave Xeno alone. They were being clueless at worst, not malicious. Giano should be unblocked at the 24 hour mark. FlyingToaster needs to resign. That's going to be the end point of all this. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• So the message we are going to give is that admins get preferential treatment, no matter how bad their behavior? That is great, really great. Today we have set precedent that admins, unless they do something like crazy bad will recieve no punishment for behavior that the regular editor will. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will respond. While Xeno did provoke Giano, it is only Giano who did the attacking. Saying that Giano and Xeno did the same thing is totally incorrect, if that were true, they would both have been blocked. Prodego ^talk 03:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your blindness is quite astonishing, and your use of the passive voice "they would both have been blocked" very telling. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Provoking an attack is worse than the attack in my opinion. The outcome of was blindingly obvious. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh don't get me wrong, I see the baiting quite clearly. But at the same time, never did Xeno engage in such blatantly flagrant attacks as Giano's: "You are a pathetic little runt. You exemplify exactly what is wrong with the project, and why so many are bailing out. You are a person to be despised and ridiculed. You are obnoxious and stupid. You are ignorant and to the project a handicap." Saying Xeno's baiting even approaches the incivility of that attack is a total misstatement. I am not sure what is so telling about my use of the passive, but if you see something in it, by all means. Prodego ^talk 03:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your use of the passive voice is a clear, if unconscious, attempt to distance yourself from the action you yourelf took. It's clear though that there's going to be yet another whitewash here, which makes me feel dirty even participating in this disgusting charade, so I'll leave you to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the blocking admin post at ANI or anywhere else first to get feedback before blocking an established editor? Had that admin done that, what sort of feedback do you think that admin would have received? Do you think, prior to the block, there would have been consensus for a three-week block? Gimmetrow 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a case of admins getting preferential treatment, though I'm sure that happens. Giano has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, Xeno does not. Apples and oranges. Shorter blocks in Giano's case have failed to help, so longer blocks are now in order. Xeno has no history of admin abuse or personal attacks, or at least none talked about here [97]. Why should they be treated exactly the same? RxS (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano's history is irrelevant -- we are talking about a current situation, not the past. If Xeno was an equal partner in this mishap, either Xeno should be blocked or Giano should be unblocked. No matter how you spin this, there is a separate and unequal justice system here, one for admins and one for non-admins. And, quite frankly, it is a bit troubling that the admins coming to this discussion are taking a circle-the-wagons strategy to protect one of their own while the non-admins are rallying to Giano's cause. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time Giano's block history came up during the Neuro blog affair it was revealed that his block log was inflated due to unjust blocks which were later reversed. I wonder why noone seems to be bringing this up. Dr.K. logos 04:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

History is absolutely relevant. Editors (admin and non-admin) have been trying to get Giano to tone down his rhetoric for quite some time now. This is just the latest in a long string of incidents. There have been no similar attempts to change Xeno's behavior. An editors history is a factor in many different venues here, it's considered when deciding if an RFC or an Arbcom case is called for, an escalating series of blocks depends on an editors history...even an IP's vandalism history is considered when deciding to block or to warn. The past needs to be a part of the discussion, as it is in any other area relevant to blocking or dispute resolution. No one is circling wagons here. RxS (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Xeno asked Prodego to unblock Giano: [98]. It appears that Prodego is either unaware of the request or is intentionally ignoring it. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some time please, I have been responding to comments here and via email, and have not yet had time for that. Prodego ^talk 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Xeno has also apologised to Giano (diff). Dr.K. logos 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, Prodego (or any other admin paying attention) -- please unblock Giano and let's call it a day. This is going on too long. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that. This has been going on long enough. It was an unfortunate incident but it needs to end. Dr.K. logos 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Third. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The block was placed due to a conflict between Xeno and Giano. It seems that Xeno has forgiven Giano. Therefore, the block is presumably no longer preventing anything, especially because Giano has walked off for a while, if not permanently. As for deterrence, Giano has a very long block log and I think we can all agree that blocking Giano does not deter anything. If he needs to be blocked, it can only be for prevention. Considering these factors, I think it would be best for Wikipedia if Giano were unblocked. Does any administrator besides Prodego disagree? Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears Xeno has blocked himself until 6/10 for "poking bears". Since we now have both blocked, shall we consider this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be on the same page now, I think they should both be unblocked. Dr.K. logos 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Giano has a history of civility issues; Giano was incivil. Regardless of what else happened, that's a major issue for me. - Philippe 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's why I have trouble with that (Jehochman's comment above), the block wasn't specifically because of the conflict, it was because Giano was really uncivil and insulting in a way that's been a problem for a long time. If you or I had had the same conflict and said the same things the worst that would have happened was a nasty-gram on my talk page. If the goal is to get Giano to tone things down, blocks of increasing length are one way to achieve that. We can look at his block log and see that short (or over turned) blocks haven't helped...so a next step would be to increase the block lengths. All with the goal to prevent further outbursts. The block wasn't to protect Xeno, but to try and reach Giano because overall his lack of civility is bad for the editing environment here. And if that's the case, Xeno's attitude toward the block at this point doesn't really matter. These ANI threads will just continue over and over because we treat each outburst the same. That's a bad thing and should be avoided. Let's try something different and let a block stick...RxS (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano unblocked by David D.

It appears David D. has unblocked Giano (terrible idea, in my judgment), so a wheel war is, well, imminent. Talk about raising the drama quotient... - Philippe 05:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was unwise in my actions, let's just move on. –xeno ^talk 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I have unblocked Xeno. I believe that block was erroneous because we don't block ourselves. Xeno can try WP:TEA or a wikibreak if they feel stressed. Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> Folks, don't we learn from the past? Archiving, closing discussions before they are truly over is... madness. It results in more upset than just leaving them open would. Unblocking under controversial circumstances rarely generates consensus. All that's happened through these actions is to raise the drama level. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, and we certainly have, here. - Philippe 05:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This board is for items that need quick admin intervention. If anything, we need less admin intervention here. Please move on. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wheel war. Why prolong this beyond its shelf life? If anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so. I will not have any more to do with this discussion. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say this is not acceptable. Discussion here did not support unblocking, at most a slight reduction of the block. Prodego ^talk 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't just unblock under these circumstances and then just walk away from the discussion like this. Admins are expected to be available for commenting after a controversial action such as this. RxS (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Civility Policy has a purpose - The purpose of civility is to prevent behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Xeno has stated that he was not particularly bothered by Giano's words. There was no unproductive stress or conflict except to Prodego. The other participants on the talk page were having a heated discussion, that appears to have stressed or nonproductivized Prodego. If he was the one who was upset - then perhaps as an involved party - he should have let someone else block. Uncle uncle uncle 05:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is but one of many cases of Giano's incivility. The civility policy is about creating an atmosphere that is conducive to collaborative editing, not just about individual cases of disruption. There is obviously a long term problem going on here. I expect David to restore the block while discussion continues as unblocking was clearly both against consensus and out of process. Prodego ^talk 06:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Two editors were having a heated discussion - neither was offended by the language used. Only you Prodego objected and you were a participant in the discussion (although perhaps trying to calm it.) There was no disruption either on or outside of Xeno's talk page. Uncle uncle uncle 06:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that Giano does not have a civility issue, or that his comment to Xeno would be appropriate in any circumstance is missing the point of civility. Prodego ^talk 06:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, let it go dude. It is likely that with a scrambled password we won't be seeing Giano again anytime soon. Let this thread be resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply - I think I see where our opinions differ. Would I be correct if I stated that you believe that the purpose of the civility policy is about creating an atmosphere that is conducive to collaborative editing? I believe that the purpose of policy is the converse: The purpose of the civility policy is to avoid an atmosphere the is inconducive to collaborative editing. It may seem a small difference but perhaps both ways should be looked at. Were Giano's words conducive to collaborative editing? No. Were Giano's works inconducive to collaborative editing? No - Xeno has stated that the words did not bother him. So, as far as collaborative editing is concerned, Giano's words had no effect. They made no one unhappy, they did not result in discouragement or departure, they made no one angry, no one lost good faith. On the other hand - your block did in fact lead to discouragement, departure, anger and even Xeno who was not blocked by you, ended up blocking himself. Uncle uncle uncle 06:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting but flawed point. This isn't just about Xeno and Giano, as I said above. Where you comment, "So, as far as collaborative editing is concerned, Giano's words had no effect. They made no one unhappy, they made no one angry..." you are in fact incorrect. I am angered that Xeno was exposed to such abuse. I am unhappy that Giano thought fit to use such language. It's caused complete chaos across loads of noticeboards and talkpages. It's not conducive to collaborative editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reblock

Acting on the prevailing sentiment that the block was appropriate (with which I agree) and that the unblock was ill-considered, I have reinstated the original block. In view of David D.'s statement at [99] that "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so", I trust that this will not be considered wheel-warring. The original block rationale still applies, because Giano II has not indicated that he will cease with the conduct that caused him to be blocked, and we cannot verify whether he has indeed permanently retired.  Sandstein  09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse re-block, and - why would it matter whether he's genuinely retired or not? If he really has, then being blocked won't bother him... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse re-block; there was no consensus for an unblock, rather the opposite. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's been two hours since a post here, and things were settling down. You've blocked Giano before, so you're not uninvolved. What were you thinking? Gimmetrow 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking what I said above. I am also not involved in the present dispute. Do we have a policy according to which a disruptive user may be blocked only once by any given administrator?  Sandstein  10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The unblock was ill-considered - whether or not you agree with it, you would be hard-pressed to argue that there was a consensus for it. A reduction, possibly... Either way, I would endorse the re-block and be indifferent to a shortening. If someone wants Giano unblocked, get consensus for it. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Sandstein has violated WP:WHEEL for repeating an administrative action knowing that another administrator opposed it. Gimmetrow 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The unblocking administrator has consented to a reversal of his action, as noted above. You may, of course, freely refer this matter to arbitration if you disagree.  Sandstein  12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is wheel warring at its purest. Not the first call from Sandstein. He should have resigned several years ago. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is arguably a technical breach of WP:WW, but my experience is that these days the community in practice tends support reversal of non-consensual unblocks (e.g. Coren's unblock of Malleus_Fatuorum a wee while ago). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in the purest form as I purposefully added the revert disclaimer to be used if the community felt strongly enough. I had hoped it would stop the fighting and be seen as an opportunity to move on. I'm sorry that is not the case but I will support Sandsteins decision. David D. (Talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein could have come to ANI and proposed a reblock to find out if there was consensus for it. He did not. Gimmetrow 12:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, to be clear, if someone comes to my talk page using bad language and telling me what they thought of my actions, actions which I later regret, and I don't mind in the slightest, they will get blocked, even if I ask that they don't get blocked? I could see the point if I was offended and made a fuss over it, but it is my talk page (not main space) and if it doesn't bother me why should it bother anyone else? This is the exact same scenario here and it makes me wonder why so many people jumped on this when leaving it on the talk page would have resulted in Xeno and Giano going there seperate ways. Jack forbes (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The civility policy doesn't just apply to the recipient. I was offended to see such insulting langauge used against a well-meaning admin. I dare say others were too. Giano knew that making such abuse was unacceptable, so there was a mens rea. They've shown no remorse, instead only carrying on their tirade against Wikipedia in general, so the fact that Xeno (very generously) hasn't demanded a block doesn't exempt Giano from the rules. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all done and dusted now. I do though think if it was left on Xeno's talk page we wouldn't have an excellent contributer leaving the project whilst an admin is admonished and even goes to the extremes of blocking himself. All that and the drama surrounding this thread could have been avoided. Just my opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely true. On the other hand, it would have sent a strong message to Giano and anyone else seeing his comment, that such language is tolerated on Wikipedia. Or at least, one can use it and get away with it. And that wouldn't be right. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like all these people who claim people should be given a pass on civility because a discussion was heated, or someone else said a bad word first, or someone had the audacity not to bend right over and accept some stubborn individual's pov right away could point to the part of WP:NPA where it says that makes it okay.--Crossmr (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's a little thing called COMMON SENSE. Giano pointed out the obvious - Flying Toaster's flawed RfA. Supporters thus got into a teenage strop. Xeno made poor edits to an article Giano was involved with - purely to bait Giano to react. Of course in a perfect life, Giano would be all sweetness and light, say the right things people want to hear... but for me, he gets irritated by people doing things other than aiming for perfection in articles for something purporting to be an encyclopedia. Maybe he shouldn't snap, sure. In this case, you can hardly poke somebody with a stick, albeit in a "civil" manner and then cry to mummy when you get a smack in the nose! Still, people got what they wanted. A highly prolific contributor creating / improving articles to a high level quality, albeit an often difficult person to deal with gone. Again, it's common sense the many teen admins aren't going to have the people skills necessary to deal with "problem" editors. Let's hope Xeno and Flying Toaster can fill the void now created with many marvellous articles ( though in FT's case, be difficult without plagiarising... ). Minkythecat (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are right back where we started: with one justice for admins and one for non-admins, and the non-admin receiving punishment that certainly does not fit the crime (despite repeated requests from Xeno that Giano not be blocked). This was quite the carousel ride,no? Pastor Theo (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents. Everyone keeps saying they cant block Xeno because that would be punitive. But I ask you, when you block vandals is this not a punishment? When you indeffinetly blocked that guy who was in the new for the Maurice Jarre thing, was that not a punsihment? Generally vandalism blocks last between 24 and 72 hours. Indeffing that guy was a way to get back at him for making us look a fool. So you cant say that you cant block Xeno on that grounds. Honestly, I like Xeno, and personally I don't want to see him/her blocked, but the double standard really isnt right. Someone needs to block him, and throw in WP:IAR if someone calls it punitiveDrew Smith What I've done 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Noooo...when a vandal is blocked, it's primarily to prevent additional damage. Effectively, there is a punative side, but the priority is to stem the flow of future additional damage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is that one little punative side. And you cant deny the indeff on the maurice jarre kid was revenge.Drew Smith What I've done 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just block admins and call IAR when someone declares this puntive? Has anybody read IAR recently and realized that the purpose of IAR is to IMPROVE Wikipedia? All you are doing is creating more drama, which is hardly beneficial. A mistake should be realized and fixed; we can't just sit here and wack each other with sticks as revenge for revenge. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 11:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And letting admins run free for doing the same thing as a normal editor is improving wikipedia? Honestly, anything that would end this dialogue would be improving wikipedia.Drew Smith What I've done 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then formally declare what he did was wrong. Tell him to unblock, apologize, and admit fault. I still don't understand how this is relevant in the grand scheme of this mess. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids, this is stunning and very disappointing.

1. Xeno baited Giano. This is clear. Xeno edited an article Giano was working on and made edits only to infuriate Giano, not to improve the article.
2. Giano got wound up like the predictable top he is and told Xeno his edits were less than stellar. They were.
3. Giano gets blocked for three freakin' weeks? Wtf is that?
4. Xeno feels ashamed and gets censured on his talk page.
5. Here we are in a circle jerk over what to do about Giano. His block should be decreased to 24 hours, which will end in about 12. Is this admin system so fragile that we must twiddle thumbs and wait for consensus? It was an excessive block! Why do we have to wait for the majority of people to realize this? How easy is it to destroy consensus when there are other forums where editors who are tired of Giano can congratulate themselves on shutting him up when articles sit fallow?
6. So I decreased his block to 24 hours from now. I know it wheel wars, but I don't care. Seriously, folks. Get your priorities in order. Content is first always, and it makes people lazy to make decisions based on a string of bad words. Three weeks for Giano is not rehabilitative or corrective and everyone knows it. Stunning!
7. I predict my actions will be overturned in short order. Which means this admin system apparently is fragile. Then fix it. It appears there are a multitude of admins who are very muddy on a lot of concepts and value winning! against an opponent. What kind of atmosphere are we perpetrating here? --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Notice: I will block any admin who changes Giano's block after this, or blocks him again after it expires absent new activity from Giano, unless there is prior discussion and clear consensus for the action here or at Arb. Gimmetrow 12:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You're clearly involved in this fiasco and have made your opinion well known. Whilst I hope no further actions are taken, you certainly aren't the right person to be blocking anybody over this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not the best idea. The consensus so far has been that the reblock was fine - I must admit that I would have favoured a reduction, however consensus does not currently exist for a specific reduction of the block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I hate being accused of perpetrating some predictable syndrome here, but consensus doesn't always rule over what is just and right. This is a tired argument in my part of the world. If we waited until everyone agreed on what actions are just and fair, nothing would ever be just and fair. Consensus fails when common sense negates it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of common sense. Most people would call common sense not wheel warring and totally ignoring consensus. Not such a great idea, imo. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is absolutely key when blocks have already been removed and restored. I would say the common sense way of handling this is to go with the consensus - this was the worst move you could have made in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A far worse move is one that you and too many of your fellow administrators have made, turning a blind eye to evident corruption. Moni3 is absolutely right; corrupt systems are only changed when someone has the courage to challenge them, not by consensus. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is cloudy here, the situation is complex and the last thing we want to do is start losing more good editors (and administrators). Some people have supported an unblock, supported a re-block and there's really mixed messages here, on Giano's talk page and on the various other locations where this has been discussed - I notice there are people not explicitly supporting an unblock, but who have commented on the unfairness of the situation, people who want Giano to return and so on. It's reasonable to conclude that there's no firm consensus for anything here, and a sensible compromise is for a short block, anything from 24 to a week, I'd say. The situation is further muddied by the involvement and behaviour of Xeno, people may be unaware of the situation and have supported a block purely based on what was said, but not on what was done leading up to the block. I really, really don't want to see further wheel warring, people trundling off to Arbcom demanding heads on a platter (and you might not get the decision you're hoping for, of course). We really don't need to lose more good content contributors over this situation, so let's accept a compromise block of 1 day to 7 days, let's tone down the rhetoric, let's drop threats and plans of arbitration, please. Giano's comments may not have been the most conducive to collegial collaboration, but the fall out from the whole incident is a lot more damaging and we need to stop inflicting more damage and start repairing things. Please, let's leave everything now and walk away. Nick (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one thing we've learned is that if an admin feels that he or she is Right and sees Evident Corruption, wheel warring is a perfectly acceptable way of getting your way. I haven't run across that concept before, but it'll sure to become pretty useful to those inclined. RxS (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is clearly in pretty short supply around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It really is, no doubt about that...RxS (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another leason we've learned. If you're repeating unblocking or reducing a block you can do so without any discussion what-so-ever. But if you replace a block that's been in force you'll get yourself blocked. That's something that should be more widely disseminated, maybe something in the signpost? Maybe WikiEN-I? RxS (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And that admins will be criticized for attempting to stop further wheel warring. Gimmetrow 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok so should Giano come back...

I propose a topic ban of sorts. Specifically Giano is restricted to the article space and article talk space (entirely for the purpose of collaboration/article building) and his own userpage and talk page. Anyone noticing a violation of the restrictions must report it here (ANI) and any administrator may block for a period of up to 12 hours. No admin can be both the person noticing/reporting the violation and the person blocking. If actioned, this sanction should be quoted verbatim for purposes of clarity. Reasoning:

• Giano, partially his own fault, and partially the fault of others, is a cause of drama on wikipedia that we could do without - so we reduce that drama.
• Giano is also a very good and prolific article writer and it would be a shame to lose that (if we haven't already) - hence allowing article and article talk page usage rather than just removing him entirely.
• Giano has gathered quite a crowd of ill-wishers - including among admins. Having a different person block to that which noticed it removes a bit of the subjective nature of sanctions like this, also puts the person a bit higher above being accused of stalking for the purpose of blocking the person - the usual problem with civility sanctions.
• Any admin may block Giano for going outside the sanctions - but some who could be called involved probobly shouldn't for the sake of drama reduction. But because of the less subjective nature of reporting then someone else blocking, an admin who may be called somewhat involved (say sandstein here) is a bit more above reproach and therefore dramaz are less likely to appear.
• 12 hours: no more than that should be needed to get Giano to step away from the computer for a while and calm down (noone likes being blocked). Past experience has shown that escalating blocks don't work in this case. In reality they end up being a small part prevention and a large part punishment - at least in regards to the incident that caused them.
• Comments? Viridae^Talk 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the only conclusion any uninvolved editor can draw from the latest IRC-inspired bruhaha is that he should flee from this backwater to healthier Wikimedia projects as soon as possible. I'm glad that Giano has come to the same conclusion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Noted, but can you keep those sentiments elsewhere, they are not really helpful. (oh and I generally agree that he would be better off elsewhere - and I do like Giano) Viridae^Talk 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

      The same also applies to you, Viridae. And I do like you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a really well thought out idea Viridae, but I feel Giano, should he return, should not be prevented from the other namespaces, he (and every other user) should at least have some say over content he's contributing and the direction of the project, so disenfranchising any content contributor from the Wikipedia namespace is wrong. If some administrators want to, perhaps Giano could be prevented from commenting in the other namespaces but his comments could be posted on his behalf, I know it's far from ideal but if Giano's comments are vetted by friendly (and, of course, unbiased) administrators, perhaps that would prevent the need for blocks.

I do like the idea of a civility parole, but I fear that many users would continue to goad and bait Giano, so there needs to be very strict guidelines on what will get Giano blocked, and if he is baited, goaded or followed and harassed, those who are responsible are similarly (and severely) reprimanded - a blanked both sides get blocked rule, unless there was no provocation, would be appreciated. Nick (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Putting a proposal forward like this one, one has to consider the likelihood that the intended target, in this case Giano, could possibly go along with it. Unfortunately this proposal amounts to putting Giano on a short leash. It is doubtful that anyone, not only Giano, could accept working under such conditions. Dr.K. logos 13:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You cant propose a both sides block, as Xeno got off after provoking Giano.Drew Smith What I've done 13:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a proposal that is only tentatively related to the above discussion and present block, it specifically is about moving forward and how we intend to deal with any future situations, should they arise. There are a great many users who don't wish to see Giano leave the project and we're trying to find a way forward, with the hope that Giano will return and that we can stop future incidents from arising, or at least, deal with future incidents when they are relatively minor and before they start to warrant blocks. Any proposal needs to make sure that if Giano is to be placed under a parole of some sort, no user dares think they can use that parole and the automatic punishment/preventative measure such a parole invokes to have a user blocked automatically. Nick (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should Giano return under parole / restrictions applied by the all knowledgable, you know full well he'll be baited - yet again - as seen by the Xeno edits. Parole / restrictions would thus trigger action against Giano, validating the baiting. Yes, Giano does get frustrated and not react in what many deem the "optimal" way, but unless you address all areas of the issue, it's a non-solution and the "encyclopedia" is the worst off for it. Minkythecat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, if Giano comes back, he should be welcomed under the same civility rules as anyone else, as ever. It's up to him, to deal with his snares of rudeness. This said, it's Giano, most experienced editors know him, I think it's ok to put up with a bit of rudeness now and then and I also think it's ok to go on blocking him when he wantonly lets it seep over the edge. Lastly, I think the block was way too long, but I understand it, don't see it as "abuse" and hence, am neutral on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano himself will decide if he comes back or not so this discussion is really irrelevant. The only thing we need to discuss is the length of Giano's block after one of his usual outburst. A block of weeks is clearly excessive, this should be reduced to a matter of days as Giano does make excellent contributions when he controls his temper and avoids baiting other contributors - Galloglass 13:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least, have the block reduced. The supposed injured party Xeno, has declared he 'was not' injured. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Viridae, doesn't the above just seem a tad like slave labor? Wikipedia doesn't have prison work camps, you know. And remember, the actions that changed this from a heated discussion to a brawl happened in article space, so your above restriction wont stop the leading cause of this disaster. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I thought this was over last night when Giano was unblocked and Xeno "apologized." As far as the apology, it didn't look much like an apology to me; he didn't say explicitly that he realized he had been entirely in the wrong when, in the middle of a heated dispute about a corrupt RfA, he followed Giano to an article he had been working on, which Xeno himself had never before edited, and made provocative edits. All this business about good faith doesn't fly. The very fact that he deliberately followed him there gives the lie to any assertion of acting in good faith. Anyway, I thought it was over then, and I hoped Giano would come back and things would be kind of put back together as well as they could, although if Flying Toaster's RfA isn't either overturned or re-run, I don't see how anything can ever be restored to any reasonable order. I should say I don't know Giano, but I do recognize someone who adds value to the encyclopedia when I see him. Giano has added immeasurable value to the encyclopedia, and continues to do so in the face of almost irrational hostility; but his dedication to the encyclopedia should be rewarded, not punished.

As to the present proposal, I think it's brilliant. When you want to maintain the present system of corrupt RfAs, the best thing to do is ban the person who has the guts to express indignation about the corruption from the pages where his protests would annoy those who don't want to hear them. I certainly hope Giano, if he did come back, would have the self-respect to refuse to work under such restraints. Woonpton (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea but not going to happen. Many of Giano's supporters like him being uncivil in project space, because he is uncivil to people they dislike. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of any sense of justice or fair play is quite breathtaking. Nobody that I've seen has supported Giano's outburst yesterday, but I've seen many supporting Xeno's far worse behaviour which precipitated it, most of them fellow administrators or wannabes. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I also notice no satisfactory answer to a point Jenaveccia raised above, in the hidden section: Scarian, an admin, got a 1-hour block for making Giano II look like a paragon of civility. --16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs)

Arbitration

I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. It was my intention to limit the scope of the case to the wheel-war between Moni3 and I, but Jehochman (talk · contribs) has, in what was perhaps a wise decision and perhaps not, changed the title of the request and requested a comprehensive arbitral examination of this situation.  Sandstein  14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not change the title of the request! Show me the diff where I did. I think it is wise to look at the entire genesis of a dispute, not just the final step. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, it was Rootology ([100]). I should have looked more closely.  Sandstein  14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And with that, this whole sorded section should go away. spryde | talk 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where should this be discussed?

It appears to me, a complete outsider, that the crux of the issue is this statement by the admin who originally blocked giano, "given that Xeno's behavior was a bit more subtle than Giano's (to put it mildly)..."

Is "subtle" goading, hounding, and baiting less egregious than using four letter words and schoolyard put-downs? This appears to be the main bone of contention in this discussion. I believe many of us would say that the former is more insidious and damaging to the project than the latter. untwirl(talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Its disconcerting to see admins act in an innaproriate manner and then have no action taken against them whatsoever, while their victim\apparent enemy is blocked, sanctionied, banned.. etc. Its not as if this is the first contentious thing Xeno has done either. Let us not forget his blocking of Dougstech, among other things. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "Subtle" goading, hounding and baiting (especially when followed by an innocent explanation ("I was acting in good faith") is far more insidious and damaging to the encyclopedia IMO than straight out "incivility." Bluntness and exasperation never bother me, but this other kind of stuff is what keeps me from editing the encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles, Would you care to expand upon the "among other things" part? (Perhaps here) –xeno ^talk 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification*

The purpose of this question wasn't to get xeno blocked. he has apologized, blocked himself, asked for giano to be unblocked, etc. The point was that prodego (and some others) seem to find "subtle" incivility more innocuous than the more blatant kind, while many believe civility means more than not calling names. i think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. untwirl(talk) 17:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Template:Hadith authenticity and religious POV-pushing

I notice a troubling cleanup tag at {{Hadith authenticity}} that says "This Hadith article needs to state the authenticity of the Hadith to conform to a higher standard of quality." (The Hadith is a collection of Islamic sayings.) It seems that this cleanup tag is used to encourage adding religious POV to articles. No article should need to state the authenticity of any religious text. Religious-themed discussions tend to be a controversial, so I wanted some more eyeballs on this TFD, which is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 20#Template:Hadith authenticity.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there--the objection is I think due to a misunderstanding about the need to include the traditional chain of transmission, which is a key part of an hadith, and missing in most of our articles. DGG (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough call. Both the New Testament and the Koran come from literate cultures, yet there's no solid original text for either. Both texts have a long period of "oral tradition", followed by a cleanup and codification phase. For the Koran, this is well covered at Koran#History_of_Qur.E2.80.99an#Making Mus'haf. The Hadith come from an even weaker oral tradition; there remain disagreements today over which non-Koranic sayings of Mohamed really came from him. See History of Hadith. So a disclaimer isn't wrong. Most of the Hadith spinoff articles discuss multiple viewpoints and texts of the same items. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, it is a confusing and unnecessary template--a problem that is more easily solved with a regular cleanup tag and a talkpage note with "Hey! Let's include the traditional chain of transmission." --Blargh29 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrewrp

Resolved

 – Apology issued, user will be more careful in future. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if Andrewrp is using a bot to autorevert but i believe he is being abit overzealous about reverting without actually reviewing the tag and articles history and/or contents, however he reverted and deleted a SD tag on an article that i had tagged and blanked as it being an attack page. He labeled it vandalism without bothering to check the article (article was deleted as an attack page. Then told me not to vandalize. When I asked him why he thought it was vandalism. He replied that he didnt personally agree with the tag and deleted it. I responded to him citing what parts were constituting the attack page tag but the comments were immediatly deleted. I noticed that in the history of the talk page there is a possible history of this. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article you are discussing appears to have been deleted; what administrative action is required? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Andrewrp is using WP:Huggle. I'm not sure if any administrative action is required, though it's disappointing he apparently didn't respond well to your comments (which I couldn't find, by the way - where did this discussion take place?) Personally, I think Andrewrp needs to slow down a wee bit - this could have been handled a bit better, but it's easy to see how it would look like vandalism if you didn't delve into the background. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I agree I should slow down a bit, but what is this guy ranting about? I reverted the page, placed a deletion tag on it, and left it. The page was deleted. I don't see why avatar is ranting. There is no reason to rant. Also, as hugglers will know, I can not see the current revision of the page... only the diff. Maybe in a new version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs)

• Andrew, the substantive point would seem to be (as in my general point below), why did you blank his questions on your talk page without comment? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I'm assuming that the generic warning template you left because you disagreed with his choice of a speedy tag probably wasn't appreciated. --Onorem♠Dil 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I DID comment. I said that I did ot consider it an attack. He said that the homo was an attack, and I left it there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewrp&diff=prev&oldid=291428714 for proof. The page is deleted, over with. Just because a different tag was used, is that a thing to complain about? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanked from his talk page pretty rapidly. To climb on an old hobby horse of mine, users of automated tools very often blank complaints from their talk pages very quickly, and almost as often give a grudging apology on the user's talk page, where it won't be noticed. I am, of course WP:ABF in this. But users of automated tools in general (I don't speak as to this case) rarely display any WP:AGF in their somewhat wanton reversions. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. In the future I will be careful with my use of automated tools. I am sorry. Maybe a temporary ban would be suited? I will apologize. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was more of a issue about bot usage by a non-admin without a measure of control. Or perhaps a warning since he just ssems to delete any comment that is mainly negative from talkpage almost immediatly. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the warning you were given was wrong, and warning him, in the presence of this thread, would be pointless. But for the record: the article in question read:

<redacted name> is a rare type of cheese sometimes found in countries with high GDP per capita, including Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Norway.

Disambiguation: Flaming homosexual

No matter what Andrew told you, you were exactly right to tag the article. Wikipedia generally asks for such things not to be blanked, in case the reviewing admin is too stupid to look at the history as they are required to do before deleting, although in this case I personally think you were right to do so. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that there are too many people talking. PLEASE get an admin to close this. What is the point of arguing over a deleted page? I know now and I have tried to fix this. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs of where you tried to fix this. So far, all I see is you being too quick to use your automated tools, blanking fair questions about your use of automated tools, offering a grudging non-apology to the person you reverted with automated tools and saying here that you did nothing wrong with automated tools and that thus you want this thread closed. Correct me if I'm wrong. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now you've archived selected threads from your talk page and then made 20 nonsense edits to the page, pushing the problems very far down the history. I'm seeking, at this point, a reason why your use of automated tools, which you don't appear to be able to justify, should continue. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. As you can see, I have about 1,500 edits. My reason for adding jibberish to my talkpage is because I did not have a TOC. But after some talking on IRC, I was told I needed at least 4 messages for it to generate a TOC. I use huggle appropriately, as you can see from my history. I know I have goofed up, and will now be careful in the future. I also have NPWatcher rights. As far as I can see, there is no reason for me to be stopped from using automated tools. I have stopped many vandals.Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this diff suggests that your use of Huggle is sometimes less than careful. I urge you to take more care in future. Rodhullandemu 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your use of automated tools is not 100% perfect and you should not think it so, lest you continue to make mistakes. Additionally, you owe Avatar 06349 (talk · contribs) a (non-grudging) apology, which I'm sure you will make in order to close this matter. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. In the future I will be careful with my use of automated tools. I am sorry. Maybe a temporary ban would be suited? I have apologized Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NoRULEZ

Resolved

 – Sent to AIV. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a user called norulez. He was blocked and came back as norulez2. Can SOMEONE BLOCK ALL ACCOUNTS WITH ANYTHING LIKE NORULEZ? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to list all the relevant accounts on this page. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Too broad a brush. But we can keep an eye on this pattern. Report new accounts to AIV, referencing this thread, each time they appear. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Montana's Defender

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, then they retracted and apologized

Already the subject of an RFC (for frequent reversions while not participating in talk-page discussions), Montana's Defender just posted this to his talk page. It in part reads, "I don't like the fact that you are all ganging up on me and I feel like this is bullying and needs to stop before someone gets hurt or killed which would be a crime. I will or should report this to the cops or someone in charge" (emphasis mine). Suggest an indef. block. (Full disclosure: another part of the message singles me out as someone who's giving him a hard time and, yes, I've nibbled at this newcomer.) --EEMIV (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and templated for violating WP:NLT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, contacting the police because they feel they're being cyber-bullied, after a recent verdict against someone whose cyber-bullying led to someone's death? This person needs help, not blocking ... that to me is not a violation of WP:NLT. If they don't know to go to an admin to deal with the situation first because they're new, then someone needs to help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of I will or should report this to the cops or someone in charge doesn't sound like a legal threat? If you think he needs help, encourage him to seek it. But so long as he's threatening to call the cops he should be finished here.--Crossmr (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of I don't like the fact that you are all ganging up on me and I feel like this is bullying and needs to stop before someone gets hurt or killed which would be a crime.

P.S. Please respect my edits instead of fighting me try helping me.

"Cyber-bullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." actually violates WP:NLT. Yes, he could be crying wolf. However, using phrases like "I feel like..." and "try helping me", and then direct quoting of cyber-bullying shows that this editor needs to be blocked? There is not threat of a lawsuit, it's a cry for respect, and a concern about cyber-bullying (which is a criminal extension of wikihounding). Both WP:NLT and WP:BULLY give recommendations if someone feels there's an issue: perhaps the editor could have been provided the WP:BULLY link, and ask them to deal with their cyber-bullying following policy, rather than just blocked someone who "feels like they're being bullied", because that just places an exclamation mark on it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that the user has removed the "cops" portion from their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He's making legal threats / intimidations over Star Trek minutia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has rescinded his threats. Seems like he should be unblocked now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan has unblocked, I have restored their userpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD categories renamed

Resolved

Nothing requiring administrator intervention. - Philippe 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In short. After proposing a certain change on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#From.2Fsince_in_maintenance_categories and receiving all positive reactions, I and an admin by the name of User:Rich Farmbrough renamed two maintenance categories. The reason was standarisation of category names.

The editors usually busy with this category weren't informed and started protesting. No bad intent was involved, since we thought consensuson the Village Pumpwas enough. Those editors did not bring forth any substantial arguments other than that they were not informed. A discussion ensued on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed in which we and others participated.

Now, suddenly, in the middle of that ongoing discussion where quite some people have stated their support of the change we made, those editors started reverting our good changes.

Please tell them to stop. Not only for the sake of our good changes, but even just because this is not fitting for admins, to start undoing good work in the middle of a discussion.Debresser (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had let CFD know about the changes you were about to make to the CFD administrative categories, you wouldn't have had consensus to make the change in the first place. You don't work on those categories. The people that do didn't think there is a problem. So what's the issue with changing it back to the way it was? --Kbdank71 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument. Any editor on Wikipedia works on anything. That is what Wikipedia is about. Also, obviously those working there didn't see the problem, because it is not an inside problem of that category. It is about standarising all of Wikipedia maintenance categories. And see Wikipedia:List_of_monthly_maintenance_categories_given_month that this category is the only one out of 43 which is not standarised!! Debresser (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Any editor" that is smart enough to read and understand policies and guidelines might be able to work on anything, but that obviously doesn't apply to you. Standardizing categories, of whatever kind, takes place at WP:CfD. That's a policy. Your abuse of Village Pump (miscellaneous) that few read — not even Village Pump (policy) which at least would be applicable — and changing CfD templates and categories without even posting a notice at CfD Talk itself, is so appallingly out of process that it's ... hard to think of a polite word. As for "the only one": that might be true today, but I can read the prior history and it wasn't true quite recently. Moreover, the very idea that discussion categories need to be standardized across projects is beyond silly, even ludicrous. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for enlivening the discussion a little with a few personal attacks. Likewise you make such logical arguments that I don't think I need to waste time on refuting (most of) them. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention their second argument: "this is the way it has been for so long". That argument was discussed there. But that is not the issue. The problem now is misuse of admin priviliges in by reverting changes in the middle of an ungoing discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose: reverting their undoing of our edits; disciplinary action against the admins involved. (I'm not an admin, so I don't know what.) Debresser (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link that shows misuse of administrative tools? - Philippe 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

These two reverts: [101] and [102] Debresser (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The returning to use of Category:CfD 2009-04, Category:CfD 2009-05 and Category:CfD 2009-06 by that same user. Although anyone can do this, it is not customary for non-admins to remove speedy templates. Debresser

I'm not sure if I see any misuse of administrative tools there... I might not have reverted until the discussion was over, but I don't think that's a misuse of tools that should result in sanctions (which this board isn't really empowered to do, anyway, any more than any normal user...). By the way, have you notified the users in question of this thread? - Philippe 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All of them, obviously. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A change to a protected page only an admin can do. But even if this is not misuse of admin priviliges, they have to be stopped and revert their changes pending the outcome of the discussion. That is unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, all the more so for admins. They are knowingly engaging edit-warring. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the first set of changes were initiated by you with edit comments that were not appropriate. To imply that the deletion requests were not controversial clearly was not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was the person that restored the categories that were deleted out of process and the changes that were made without discussion. While I did rollback those changes, this was a change that any user could have made. I find it interesting that someone has proceeded to re delete the categories. So if the complaint about recreating while the discussion was ongoing is valid then the second deletion should have also waited. I'll also ask how much attention to the facts the administrator who did the first deletes was paying to the task at hand. The number of edits from that account was rather high around that time and the account was doing thousands per day and several per minute.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll support.

• It's hard to fault the poor fellow who followed a false {{db-house}} template added by Debresser yesterday on Category:CfD 2009-04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• But Farmbrough is misguided at Category:CfD 2009-05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but should have known that the whole thing was against policy. He's been around for many years.
• And the log entry for Category:CfD 2009-06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was "‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Administration category by date, expired and emptied)" — yes, next month's date had expired!

There's two administrators that should be sanctioned!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noproblem with you posting here... But it is a little off-topic. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually disagree with the changes (and if so, why?), or is this just because no one at WT:CFD has been asked beforehand? I agree that that should have happened, but I'm pretty sure that there was no malice involved, so let's not assume bad faith, shall we? --Conti|✉ 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. These are used by only a small number of admins who are happy with the current names. The names chosen are not correct as is demonstrated by the adding of a third variation of name to the mix. This is not the place to resolve category naming issues. Personally we should undo the changes that were made and have a proper discussion by nominating those names for a change. Going back to the old names is preferred since one of the parties involved in creating this mess has apparently decided that the first names created out of process are not correct. This is strong support for a full discussion and not leaving the ones that almost everyone likely agrees are not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, while I understand your frustration, I don't think there's anything for this board to do. Any issues you have could be dealt with at RfC, but there's nothing here that requires immediate administrative attention, I think. - Philippe 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea who made further edits, but stopping you in the middle of violating Wikipedia guidelines is a good thing by any means, isn't it? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Over there they give comments. I'm asking their actions be reverted. And I do think this was misuse of admin priviliges. These two things belongs here, don't they? Would you care to explain why you think you shouldn't do anything about these two things. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To make all of this more interesting, there are now a third set categories for April and May. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And where are these? And why and by whom? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Categories for discussion by Rich Farmbrough. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Debresser (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do I have to take this to arbitration? Debresser (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbitration case would likely be denied until you have completed the other steps in dispute resolution, beginning with an RfC, as I suggested above. :-) - Philippe 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucracy instead of justice. Law of the jungle rules. Iam disapointed. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Our Dispute Resolution procedures are in place because, generally, they work. Are you upset that it doesn't lead to the result you want immediately? From what I can see, there's a question as to the veracity of where you posted this for comment, and given that, I think it might be best to re-run the process, beginning with a post, as suggested, in WT:CFD. - Philippe 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain. This post of mine here is not to discuss the change of the category names. Ths is about stopping people making edits (part of them on protected pages by admins) in the middle of a discussion. I understand that this is the right place for that. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way to STOP someone from making edits is to block them, and I don't see a blockable offense here. That's why I'm saying there's nothing here that can be done administratively. Really, your best route is to reopen the discussion or open an RfC. - Philippe 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to escalate this rather then trying to resolve the naming issues? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment to the last post of both Philippe and Vegaswikian is that the discussion was not closed by me but by Vegaswikian making changes in the middle of discussion. I hereby ask him to voluntarily undo these pending the outcome of the discussion. If Vegaswikian will agree to this, I will likewise refrain from persuing any outside evaluation and the like of his actions in this case. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get to what needs undoing, you can agree to return everything to the way it was before you started your changes that were not within policy. A partial list of issues is provided above. Clearly you violated policy with a discussion in the incorrect place and then acting on that discussion. Clearly you made changes that required administrator action without accurate, factual and truthful edit comments. I think everyone has been trying to assume good faith here and that is shown by no one placing a warning on your talk page which we all could have done. As pointed out above, the administrator that did some of the changes no longer believes that the names that you are supporting are still correct. So go back to correct names and discuss in the proper forum for the proper length of time the proposed names. Clearly the names selected appear to have a problem since even Rick's action shows that he thinks they are wrong. That clearly shows that the changes were made without sufficient discussion.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can not make edits that require administrator action, since I am not an admin. As to my edits, if you mean to say that the category I created could have been named a little more accurate, you may be right, bit in any case I do not think that would be reason for starting to post warnings on my talk page and rightfully nobody has done so. However, all this is besides the point. The only point is you jumping to undo edits in the middle of discussion. I feel obliged to offer you the possibility to continue the discussion at the same point you stoped it, by reverting your edits. If the correct procedure is to go to RfC, I will do so. I will sincerely regret the time involved, as well as the prospect of antigonising people I'd rather work with than against, but Wikipedia can not tolerate such breaching of its dispute resolution procedures. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody very familiar with the dispute resolution procedures, you don't seem to know them well. Where is the policy that your changes not be reverted? Note that the guideline Wikipedia:Be bold#...but please be careful clearly says:

"It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further."

and Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces

"Although it is acceptable to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."

Finally, calling for sanctions against administrators here for properly reverting after a short discussion at the proper place is an example that would lead an RfC against you. As would ad hominem attacks calling citations of your failure to comply with policy "personal attacks", as you did here today.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to return to the position I held several hours ago: nothing here requires immediate administrator intervention. I'm going to mark this resolved for the purposes of this board. - Philippe 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin actions were reverts on protected templates, hence theoretically a wheel-war, but lets just sort out the substantive issue. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Vh1-fac

Resolved

 – Article is no longer speedy-tagged, editors are hacking away at it gently ;-) Apologies for the noise... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies for hi-jacking this thread, but it is tangentially related. Could anyone with a few minutes to spare keep an eye on User talk:Vh1-fac#Re: kytrell? I've been helping them with an article they created which was tagged for deletion (resulting in my involvement in this thread), but I'm going to be offline for a wee while? They may have questions about notability, etc. They have been posting in weird places, and I figured a helping hand would help minimise possible disruption. Feel free to remove this and slap me if it's completely inappropriate... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Refactored to separate a seemingly unrelated thread. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neomewga

Resolved

 – User warned

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

This user doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I realize I have some bad math, so bear with me: almost 80% of his edits are in his own userspace. The body of his edits appear to basically be nothing, so I have no idea what he's using wikipedia for. But one thing is for sure, it isn't building an encyclopedia. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor and explaining your concerns? AniMate^draw 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may have in the beginning, but I forget. Other than that, others have. And actually, I have as well. Just check the history of the page. I warned the user several times against using wikipedia as a social network.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just did a quick check, according to soxred93's edit counter 75% of his edits are in user talk space, 19% are in user space, and 6% are in the article space. He has 6 edits to the article wii homebrew and 1 to MySims Kingdom. His edits to wii homebrew seem to be nothing more than a formating preference, albeit one not supported by the manual of style as seen here. I do not want to get involved, just providing pertinent info.Drew Smith What I've done 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned. Let me know if anything else is needed.n AniMate^draw 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavior (Editors involved: Edokter, Drew R. Smith, and Arcayne)

(Ok people lets leave the title alone now, its neutral)
Can someone tell Arcayne (talk · contribs · logs) that it is not OK to keep dredging up past issues regarding my conduct that happened long ago, in each discussion we happen to end up in? I am quite sick and tired of content discussions being sidetracked focussing on my past conduct. I have removed his personal attack twice now, but I'm leaving it to other admins to decide what to do next. In any case: I refuse to be subjected to Arcayne's constantly provoking me. — Edokter • Talk • 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly your past behavior was relevant information and wasn't presented in an attacking way. However, your actions in removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance are all inexusable.Drew Smith What I've done 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this happaned MONTHS ago. I have provided the proper venue to discuss the issue; what possible benefit is there dredging up old cows from my past? Discuss the content, not the editor. Open a conduct RFC if you have to, but I am no longer tolerating my past actions being highlighted in every discussion I take part in. — Edokter • Talk • 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(my apologies; I was crafting this for AN/I, and learnt that Edokter had already posted here)

Edokter is now removing posts from WP:Editor Assistance/Requests from other editors. The discussion surrounds the lack of citation on a page, and the edit-warring that began between between pd_THOR and Edokter. The request for assistance was initiated by pd_THOR and Drew Smith was pretty much siding with pd_THOR. Then Edokter started dropping in the following ominous phrases:

" "I advise [pd_THOR] to cease and disist[sic] this petty dispute"

" "And I am warning [pd_THOR] not to engage in any further forum shopping"

• "This matter is closed.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of Edokter's inappropriate use of his admin tools, I knew what these sorts of comments presaged, and said so. Immediately, Edokter refactored out my post, calling it a "personal attack", and putting a warning on my talk page. I reinstated the info, as refactoring is not the proper method for addressing personal attacks, real or imagined. Edokter removed it yet again, with more ominous language in his edit summary. Then Drew readded it, and suggested that he might wish to open a complaint here to discuss his admin conduct. Edokter again removed the info (for the third time), which brings us here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Three times? I must have missed the first one. This is a real question, not an attack or anything, but does 3rr apply to EAR?Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is valid. I will pose the question again: Why does Arcayne see fit to enter a discussion he was not a party of, only to point out past actions which are unrelated? I tell you why: to discredit and to provoke me. That is how I see it. I said so above: I will no longer tolerate personal attacks of this nature dispersed throughout content discussions. Discuss the content. If my conduct is subject to scrutiny, find the proper venue for it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One, look at the title of this section "Edoktors behavior again". Seems like the proper venue to me. Two I am reposting this as you apparently didnt see it or were ignoring it "your actions in removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance are all inexusable." Three, he had every right to chime in there as it is called Editors Assistance, and he is , first and foremost, and editor. Four, it wasn't a personal attack, or dredging up old cows, it was pertinent info. He was expressing the concern that your current actions were mirroring your past actions.Drew Smith What I've done 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I also find it distressing that Edokter doesn't feel that his past behavior should be involved in a discussion about his behavior. Had it something that happend years ago, maybe he'd have a point. Maybe if the behavior had improved, he'd have a better point. The problem is, it hasn't. He still edit-wars as an admin, which colors how all admins are viewed. He still threatens the use of his admin tools (though, in fairness, he hasn't called for anyone to be topic-blocked in almost a whole month).

On the prior occasions where Edokter's questionable behavior has been discussed here at AN/I (1, 2, 3, [103]), he has proven resistant to adjusting his behavior to be less attack-y, more civil, and avoiding the use - or threat of use - of the admin tools to block users, maliciously nom pages for deletion when he doesn't get his way, etc. On each occasion, Edokter is counseled and warned about his behavior. How many warnings does he get before we de-sysopp him? That won't address the underlying problem of incivility - indeed, nothing to this point has - but it will effectively remove his ability to use, or threaten to use his admin tools to block those he opposes.

And, to respond to Edokter, just because I am not part of your argument with pd_THOR and Drew Smith doesn't mean I am unaware of the familiarity of both the subject matter and the manner in which you address such arguments. If you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be discredited. If you own your own behavior, you cannot be provoked. Take ownership for your own behavior, for crying out loud; stating that someone else is trapping you and making you be uncivil is preposterous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point! There is absolutely no reason to point out any past actions. Doing so only serves one purpose: to discredit my current position. It is also Arcayne pattern of behaviour to discuss the editor rather then the content, at least that is the pattern when I am involved. I dare Arcayne to discuss any issue without even referencing my blocking him in the past; I will guarantee it; he will not be able to do so. — Edokter • Talk • 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment (and I've not looked deeply into this dispute, but just stumbled across this diff on my watchlist) I think that there are definitely some civility/tone issues[104] that need dealing with. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Arcayne, those were some harsh words there. While it doesnt constitute an attack, it was defenitly uncivil, and should be avoided. Perhaps you should take a break from this and come back when you've cooled down. On a side note, what did I do to get my name in the title?Drew Smith What I've done 12:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is not article or article-talk space, now is it? And frankly, asking someone to stay away is indeed my prerogative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it should be there, but you did question my conduct implying that I abused the admin tools. An admin is just another editor, and I acted as an editor. So any reference to my being an admin was misplaced. — Edokter • Talk • 12:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please post diffs to prove this. I only said you were breaching the admin code of conduct, and Arcayne pointed out that your language seemed to indicate that you were going to abuse your admin tools.Drew Smith What I've done 12:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, you used language very close to this before blocking, calling for topic bans, nominating entire articles for AfD, etc. If I had not said anything, what might you have done, as the consensus was against your reasoning? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's the whole problem here: Arcayne's prophecies. I learned well from my mistake. If I warn someone, which is well within my right, it does not in any way indicate an action on my part. There are 1600 admins here, and it is no trouble pointing their attention to such an editor. Arcayne continues, to this date, to imply that anytime I issue a warning, that *I* will be the one using any admin toos. As long as her maintains that unsubstantiated accusation, there can be no discussion between me and him. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- In most cases I would believe you, however your past behavior seems to indicate a trend of vindictive use of admin tools. And once more I ask you to explain your actions outlined here "removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance"Drew Smith What I've done 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, please refrain from posting unconstructive edits. The biggest part of gaining consensus is asking and answering questions. We have both asked you countless times to explain your actions, and you have only proceded to discuss unrelated points.Drew Smith What I've done 12:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please point out any "vindictive use of admin tools" I may have comitted. I made one mistake. Any other action never involved any admin tools. As long as Arcayne cannot engage in discussion without yelling "Look look, he blocked me!", any unsubstantiated implication that I will abuse the admin tools again is viewed as a personal attack and nothing more then an attempt to discredit my current actions; I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on. — Edokter • Talk • 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Clearly, you haven't learned from your mistake; the same problems pointed out a year ago are still an ongoing issue with you. Do I need to bring every instance of correlation where your language initiated admin action? Not even a weeks ago, when you unilaterally declared in another article that discussion was closed, your next step was to call for a topic ban. Maybe you don't really intend admin action every time you declare one of these fiats of yours, but they have the tone of someone who can (and has) used the tools to get their way.

And lastly, the title has been fixed to more accurately reflect the problem. I am not the problem, and neither is Drew (or pd_THOR). Maybe leave it be, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- Leave it neutral Arcayne, the title won't hurt you. Let him have that small victory.Drew Smith What I've done 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that you really controll the discussion, but it is a big part of the discussion. And your use of the phrase "I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on" Is extremely troubling. Just how, might I ask, will you do this?Drew Smith What I've done 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am refering to any content related discussion. This thread I brought to ANI myself, and my question is equally simple: provide any proof thah I have, or will abuse my admin tools, because that is the heart of this discussion, and I appriciate not deviating from the subject. — Edokter • Talk • 12:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you abused your tools. I said you are violating the admin code of conduct. Please address the conduct previously mentioned.Drew Smith What I've done 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you brought the thread here after someone suggested that they might have to; you did so as to attempt to reframe the issue. Which is pretty much what you are trying to do now. Allow me to ask you the simplest of questions: had pd_THOR not chosen to "cease and disist[sic] this petty dispute", or 'close the discussion' as per your demand, what might have happened next? If I choose to say something about the similarity in both tone and tactics, then it isn't a personal attack - especially if it happens to be true.

And for the record, I didn't say you were abusing your admin tools in the 33 discussion; I said that, based on your past conduct, you were likely about to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as I repeatedly point out, saying "I am likely about to" is an unsubstantiated and unfounded accusation, and therefor a personal attack. Asuming that I will abuse the tools again is bad faith, which you have repeatedly demonstrated by not being able to let go. I even apologised for that block, something I am starting to regret. — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Break (behaviour)

Ok, Edokter, we understand your side of the argument. Now try to answer some questions. ""I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on" Is extremely troubling. Just how, might I ask, will you do this?" and can you explain these actions:"removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance" I am quoting these to show, that I have asked many many times, and you still ignore me.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I will no longer permit content discussion to contain any reference to my past action to further the other side's agenda. I cannot be bothered to filter out the legitimate part of a post; that is the poster's responibility. That is why I removed the entire post. 2) My removing the fact tag is an editorioal decision, which I have explained in the article's talk page, in short because I believe it does not need sourcing, and an RFC regarding that matter is currently ongoing. 3) pd_THOR was conducting in forum shopping, and I am well entitled to point that out. I am also entitled to issue warnings if that conduct continues. Let me reitterate that warnings do in no way indcate action on my part, they only express my viewpoint of the situation. Implying ohterwise is what has braught us here in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 13:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately forum shopping cannot be applied. Editors assistance is part of the dispute resolution proccess, and you and he were clearly in dispute. As for the fact tag, general practice is not to remove them until it is either sourced, or consensus as been reached to remove the tags.Drew Smith What I've done 13:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Could the lot of you stop bickering? You've taken up a ridiculous amount of space. Take it to talkpage and let somebody outside and uninvolved comment here, as you (Edokter) presumably wanted when you started the thread. Please. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you all have brought your argument here and have done over 95% of the contributions to this thread. Just block all three and be done with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral opinion, Jojhutton. I think you have missed the point. Edokter keeps arguing using language that tends to belittle and threaten reprisal to any opposition. When this behavior was called into question, Edokter saw it as a personal attack and filed here. The remainder here is explanation/clarification of that behavior. As he is an admin, that sort of behavior doesn't really fit the code of conduct that admins have set up for themselves. When such problems occur with admins - specifically this admin - the talk page doesn't work, as Edokter has unilaterally declared discussion complete.

I guess it would be up to his fellow admins; maybe they see this behavior as acceptable. I don't, and neither do Drew or pd_THOR. We were looking for neutral admins to weigh in and offer some advice and assistance; I for one wasn't looking for a Edokter block - a de-sysop, but not a block. With respect, you are neither neutral nor an admin. But again, thanks for your opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Can the three users with the dispute, each of whom is identified in the section title, please now back off and allow a neutral party to resolve, or advise upon, the issue. I don't claim to be a neutral party, and it seems that Jojhutton isn't either, but his words are nonetheless true - you've made a huge load of pointless discussion that nobody wants to wade through. Please wait. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am eagerly awaiting any other admins' comments, and they they are of course free to chime in at any time. — Edokter • Talk • 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Actually, I stopped posting to see if we could get any admins, but they seem to be hiding...Drew Smith What I've done 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As did I. I third that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

88.0.241.168

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

This brand new IP editor seems to have no purpose except undoing my edits. Would someone please look into this? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a 3 revert violation, several times. I would vote to block --Jojhutton (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that, I left a warning on the IPs talk page.Drew Smith What I've done 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a sockpuppet investigation in connection with this incident. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing by permanently banned user from IP address

See [105] and [106].

Jeff Merkey has been permanently banned from Wikipedia [107] [108]. Pfagerburg's block expired almost one year ago [109]. One of these accounts is a banned user whose contributions are subject to immediate removal (and the implication is that this is not covered under 3RR [110]) per WP:BLOCK, and one of them is not.

Jeff has been using two IP addresses, 166.70.238.44 and .45, to edit Eric Schmidt's bio in the past few months. Both of those addresses can be easily linked to Jeff just by doing a tracert [111] [112] and looking at the host name where it stops.

Request semi-protection of the Eric Schmidt BLP, and a permanent IP address range block. Admin Coren previously blocked that range for a time period [113], but since the evasion has continued, a permanent block is justified. There should also be a checkuser to find if any accounts have been created/used from that address range.

Jeff's claims of sockpuppetry [114] are unfounded, because I'm not evading a ban, nor am I pretending to be - or not to be - any particular account. 67.41.112.91 (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A Checkuser is investigating this. For now I've semi'd the article for BLP concerns as two IPs are duking it out.[115] rootology/equality 05:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Thank you for semi-protecting the page so quickly.
2. Checkuser won't show a link between the "Jeffrey Vernon Merkey" account and the IP's; there was a checkuser back in Aug 2008 that came back with the named account as dormant. Tracert will clearly show the link; it was sufficient proof for Coren to extend Merkey's ban in Apr 2008. Checkuser will still be helpful in identifying any sockpuppet accounts, though, so by all means I encourage it.
3. "duking it out"? I'm merely following policy that a banned user's edits may be immediately reverted. Not my fault he's continuing to evade the ban; I did suggest a remedy that Coren found worked once before, until it expired. 67.41.112.91 (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

This guy Hrhadam (talk · contribs) is not behaving. For some reason he blanked a legitimate reference I added to an article without any explanation [116], he has an attack posted at the top of his own talk page disparaging people who post there [117], he insists on adding musical genres to various britpop articles and promises to revert war when they're removed [118]. I don't know what his deal is. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a stern talking to :) C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 06:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey gentlemen. First off let me apologize for often skipping my edit summaries. I'd like both of you to look at the talk page of the user who posted on my talk page, and see the numerous attacks against him for his nonsensical edits and behaviour, before deciding who was in the wrong. I could have easily removed his postings on my page, but I did not. As for the LL Cool J article, I'm going to plead ignorance -- and change my password. I stand behind my edits 100%, but I really do have no recollection of, nor would I mess around with anything legitimate, on any article. I'm going to have to guess some moron at my office played around just to "see" if their edits would stay, as so many people are prone to on Wikipedia. I've allowed the Be Here Now article to stand -- I now agree the album is BritPop -- I just felt the definition of britpop itself needed some updating; I'm fine with it the way it is. I expect responses from both of you, be they positive, negative, sympathetic, or something else altogether -- I simply hope you appreciate my response, and position. Cheers, Hrhadam (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like anyone that comes across this to check out the talk pages of the 2 guys who had issue with me -- Because I assume you like to laugh. Hrhadam (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser ping

• GianoSuck (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), deleted revs
• Incredibly anonymous (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), deleted revs (particularly nasty)
• Rareriroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If this is someone known, via CU, they have to be shown the door for a duration on their proper account. This is all getting outrageous--even if this is an admin, they need to be blocked for this. Who is the sockmaster? rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: if this is an admin, they need to be blocked desysopped immedately for this. Anyone else, at least a 30-day timeout. //roux   22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's just the latest (?) 4chan meme. --NE2 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of doubt that "Giano" is on the 4chan/Anonymous radar screen. This still needs Checkusering. rootology (C)(T) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a positive intersection between Wikipedia "trolls" and people who like 4chan memes, even if it's small compared to the latter. I'd bet a few bucks that it's not a regular editor, but I guess checkusering can't hurt. --NE2 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rareriroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) needs to be looked at along with the other accounts listed above, it looks like it could be connected with the above accounts. Nick (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've mailed functionaries-en, so every Arb & CU now knows about this harassment. rootology (C)(T) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference Checkuser-L and SPI are better places to go, but this is being looked at.--Tznkai (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly anonymous and Rareriroru appear to be JtV. Not sure who GianoSuck is a sock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys there's no need to clog up ANI with this sort of thing. SPI exists for a reason. This is a clear cut case of investigate and block accordingly, nothing more to see here. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Some of us are waiting patiently in line over at SPI and don't like getting butted in front of. :P - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rotational

[Restored from archive. Nothing can be done on the back of two comments, so this remains unresolved. Hesperian 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Are we ever going to do anything about Rotational? This user wars interminably over two layout issues, upon which he disagrees with both consensus and the Manual of Style: he hates "=="-level headings because they put a thin grey line across the page, and he hates right-floated right-facing images.

In the last week alone, he has edit-warred at List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes, Jean-Louis van Aelbroeck, René Louiche Desfontaines, Antoine Risso, and Heinrich Schütz; and that is not to mention the many pages where there is no edit war solely because no-one has stepped up to revert his tendentious changes. Other recent edit wars include Magellanic Catalogue of Stars, Franz Sieber, NGC 5679 Group, Walter Hood Fitch and Eucalyptus flocktoniae. Before that it was Joseph Maiden, Barnard 68, Nils Johan Andersson, Katey Walter... that takes us back to the first days of March, when he was warring on about twenty pages simultaneously. It seems he always has at least a few edit wars on the go, and always over the same issues. I don't know what pages he'll be edit-warring on in a fortnight, but I can guarantee you he'll be edit-warring somewhere, if something isn't done about him.

He was blocked indefinitely for socking under his old username "Paul Venter", but talked his way out of the block by denying he was the same user—a denial that is now obviously, even openly, a lie. He was reported for edit warring here, and here, and here, and here. He has been warned on his talk page innumerable times. A great deal of time has been wasted arguing with him. He has even been blocked once. But the warring just goes on and on and on. Hesperian 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Paul venter sock case was at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Paul_venter.
• This is the discussion from November 2007 where Rotational gets unblocked, after indignantly protesting the assertion that he is Paul venter, but without actually denying it: Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness.

I suggest that we impose an editing restriction. Admins could tell Rotational he must stop revert-warring against other editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style. In particular, he must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images. (He strongly opposes the standard formatting of the header line of reference sections: see this edit from May 11. He is relentless on that topic). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction. Rotational has been warned far too many times now, and as far as I can tell, they are not a benefit to the encyclopaedia. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction as one of the editors who frequently has to clean up after him. It is also worth noting he has several pages in his userspace, which at one point he created cross namespace redirects to, and had categorised, though quickly the redirects were speedy deleted and the categories removed a couple of days ago. I suspect this action was to circumvent the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction, what do you mean "two isn't enough"? Of course it is - one is enough. The key is, did any admin disagree? and no, no one did. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. The user has fundamental disagreements with strong personal opinions about the MOS, but unfortunately seems to prefer warring in articles rather than discussing his issues at WT:MOS or elsewhere. The amount of disruption that resulted at Walter Hood Fitch was totally excessive and shouldn't be repeated in other articles. Papa November (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) [Edited 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC) - "fundamental disagreements" isn't quite right]

Oppose The Gang of Six decries Rotational's layout-related edits -- characterizing them as 'edit warring' and claiming they violate WP:MOS. Rotational then supplies a word-for-word quote from the WP:MOS which supports and validates his editing style (see Rotational's response, below). The Gang of Six then does a 180 and starts characterizing that same MOS as unimportant and now only a secondary or tertiary issue. Now it becomes to them a six-of-us-versus-one-of-you kangaroo court. For the Gang of Six: When you have been shown to be wrong, the proper response is, "Oh, sorry about that. Never Mind." But instead, that group obliviously forged ahead and made up new 'reasons' why Rotational should be blocked. A paraphrase of their 'new and improved' reason goes something like this: We don't care what the MOS says. That document is flawed and ambiguous. There are six of us that want it our way. There is only one of him.

No matter how much you dislike the 'look', the WP:MOS does clearly support Rotational's editing style. The Gang of Six needs to back down on this one. Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I support this, so assuming EdJohnston supports his own proposal, that makes six supports and no opposes. Would an uninvolved party please frame precise conditions and consequences and inform Rotational? Hint: The above "must stop revert-warring against editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style" will only result in hair-splitting arguments over what the Manual of Style says and whether an edit can be seen as in accordance with it. "must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images" is much better. Hesperian 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. See WP:RESTRICT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd, but not altogether unexpected considering the quality of some of the the learned figures taking part in this kangaroo court. There is a clear directive in the MoS and I quote:

• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption. Am I to understand that you have without consensus decided to throw out this particular guideline OR have you decided that I of all WP editors will not be permitted to enforce it?. Do try to think clearly before replying. Rotational (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • A "clear directive".... riiight. If the MOS contains anything at all that can be fairly called a "clear directive", it is the first dot point of that section, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox". Hesperian 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well......something had to be placed first because historically that's the way it happened, but its position in the list doesn't make it the most important, in fact its presence in the MoS is suspect because there is no compelling reason aesthetic or otherwise for its use - in short it is indefensible. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; so "clear" means "clear if I ignore the direct contradiction that I disagree with". Hesperian 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Hesperian, clear as in, "...place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text..." What part of that is confusing to you? Rotational has provided support for his style of editing via a direct quote from the WP:MOS. Rotational doesn't disagree with the MOS. He provides a chapter and verse quote from the MOS to substantiate and validate his style of editing. Where is your quote from the MOS? Got none? Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits like this violated other MOS guidelines by causing unsightly text-squeezing and stripping the alt-text from an image, so please don't pretend to be valiantly defending the MOS! You should start a polite discussion about the matter at WT:MOS and present your concerns and proposals clearly. It'll work out far better for you than edit-warring at individual articles. Also, once again I'd encourage you to discuss policy rather than questioning the intellect of other editors - it's not doing you any favours. Papa November (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're comparing edits look at this and tell me that the layout is an improvement AND conforms to MoS. I'm certainly NOT defending the MoS but rather pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of it. I'm not asking for "any favours", but rather that you acquire an evenhanded approach. Rotational (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the above means "Cygnis insignis is as bad as me and should be treated the same way." An inspection of Cygnis' contributions will clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. Hesperian 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, inspect closer. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The MoS contains conflicting guidelines - indeed the quoted text acknowledges that contradiction - yet you have taken one of those positions (that it is "often preferable" to do something) as a justification for edit-warring across multiple pages. I would ask if you have a similar justification for your position regarding level-two headings, but it's irrelevant. The consensus is very clear that your actions are disruptive and need to stop. Do try to avoid making any further personal attacks when replying. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've marked this as resolved as no further admin action is required here. There is still disagreement over the MOS issues, so please sort it out at WT:MOS rather than clogging up the admin board. Papa November (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened this thread following a request from SheffieldSteel. However, please restrict your discussion here to whether or not the editing restrictions against Rotational are justified. I have started a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers for you to resolve the style issues... please don't let the debate spill over onto this thread. Papa November (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If Rotational had a sincere disagreement with the WP:MOS, you would expect him to work to get it changed by consensus. Ad-hoc revert-warring on the layout of individual articles doesn't seem to be good faith. We shouldn't allow the uncertainties in the manual of style to translate into indefinite tolerance for revert-warring on individual articles. He has been wasting the time of other editors. Please don't assume this is a new issue, where a slightly-misguided editor has to be pointed to the proper channels. It's a matter of his entire history on Wikipedia. His above comments don't address the problem he has created. Compare his unblock request from 2007 with the current debate; he has learned nothing, and does not wish to compromise in the slightest. He has not accepted Firsfron's request to him from 2007: I will ask that you attempt to follow the guidelines set out at WP:MOS (already linked on your userpage) concerning headings (WP:HEAD). If you need assistance, I would be happy to help out or give advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Has somebody pointed out to Rotational that the thin lines go away if he changes his skin?
  • Yes. Repeatedly. I don't recall ever getting a clear answer why he doesn't like that solution, other than because I proposed it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't even take a style sheet; just changing your preferences for skin: I use Classic myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• That failing, a consensus on each article is a sounder argument than MOS, most of which was never consensus, and is now imposed out of a preference for any consistency over diversity. (If nobody at the articles cares, why should ANI?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • People at the article do care. There are a group of people who edit in the same fields as him (e.g. botanical illustrators). He pops up on their watchlists giving an article an ugly layout that he alone likes, on the basis of some trivial vexillogical quibble; they revert back to something attractive and (incidentally, if you like) in accordance with the MOS; there is an argument, possibly an edit war. A few days later he pops up on their watchlists again, giving a different article the same ugly layout; they revert; they have the same tired argument, possibly another edit war. Watch, rinse, repeat. Ad infinitum.

    I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout, and everyone else hates it. That fact alone ought to be sufficient to restrain Rotational from repeatedly applying it to articles. But it is not. Rotational continues to edit and edit war in an attempt to force articles to use his preferred layout, even though he knows everyone but him thinks it hideous. And people are sick of it. That is the problem here. The MOS only comes into this as as a surrogate for "the layout preferred by everyone except Rotational".

    Hesperian 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    • • People at the article don't care - those images at Walter Hood Fitch sat there unchanged from February 2008 when I placed them there until March 2009 when our friend Cygnis arrived and decided to stir up a bit of trouble. Also please don't presume to speak for me "I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout" or for anyone beside yourself. Rotational (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So I shouldn't speak for anyone beside myself, but you're still entitled to speak for everyone in claiming that none of them cares. Your rationale can be summarised as Anyone who appears to care is actually just stirring up trouble; therefore, no-one cares. I can't fault your logic, but the premise you're starting from needs a bit of work. Hesperian 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And that, unfortunately, is the case to block. We should use the layout preferred by many even if MOS were against it; if MOS abided by policy, we would then change MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• All due respect to Septentrionalis, the MoS here is a red herring; what we have is a user who is being tendentious & disruptive -- Wikipedia jargon for being annoying. He has been told he is under a restriction to, in effect, stop being annoying. Arguing over what this means is, I think anyone will agree, being annoying in a new, but still annoying, manner. At this point I am probably too tired -- which makes me cranky -- to handle this matter in an equitable & wise manner (after posting this, I will be going straight to bed, without even pausing to see what the latest thread about Giano is about), but I believe we have a situation which can only be resolved by disinviting the user. And as cranky as I may be, I still hope that i am wrong here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be summarised as "tendentious & disruptive" is laughable. My aim throughout has been to contribute and improve articles. Some of my critics are self-appointed watchdogs who contribute extremely little in mainspace and spend their time carrying out trivial edits whilst congratulating themselves on the sterling job they are doing. Most of them spend an inordinate amount of time working on their political alliances and suffering from the puckered-lips syndrome. I regret being seen as a loose cannon, but if that is a catalyst to changing outdated ideas which are lovingly clung to, then so be it. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If your aim truly is "to contribute and improve articles", then I suggest you leave this thread and do exactly that. I know of several editors who consider the MoS, WP:AN, etc. good for nothing more than rulewanking, but instead of coming here & sharing that opinion with one & all, they are quietly contributing solid content. Not wasting anyone's time quarreling over the appearance of articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From my experience with Rotational, the sooner he gets blocked indefinitely, the better for all of the project. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your response (above, 18:30, 18 May 2009) is disingenuous. Rotational does not have a disagreement with the WP:MOS. On the contrary, he agrees with it and is following its guidelines. He has provided here (above) a direct quote from the MOS which substantiates and validates his style of editing. Characterizing his WP:MOS-compliant editing as "...ad-hoc revert-warring..." is either ignorance or outright dishonesty on your part. It is becoming harder for me to assume your 'good faith'.

You used the phrase, "...the uncertainties in the manual of style...". According to you and your cohorts, Rotational was 'violating' the WP:MOS... until he provided a direct quote from the MOS which supports and validates his editing style. So am I to conclude that anytime the WP:MOS conflicts with your personal tastes, it is the MOS that is "...uncertain..." rather than a simple but clear-cut case of you being wrong?

When Rotational edits the articles in compliance with the WP:MOS and you revert his edits because you don't like them, whom exactly is doing the edit warring? You are. An edit's quality of being "...disagreeable to EdJohnston's tastes..." does not make it a violation of WP:MOS. It is times like this that you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and relax. No matter how much it infuriates you, you must accept it. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Where is your quote? Papa November just wrote to you and your cohorts that he has opened a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images so that you can try to get the WP:MOS changed to your 'flavor'. You will need to make a case for deletion of the section that Rotational has quoted (word-for-word) in his post above. As long as that section is part of the WP:MOS, Rotational is right and you are simply offended because of that. Your invitation to us to look at his past edits is disingenuous and brings into question your good faith. Are you implying that you should 'win' even though you are wrong about this current issue (placement of pictures in articles) because Rotational has been on your dartboardbefore?

To prevail honestly, EdJohnston, you should provide chapter and verse Quotes from the WP:MOS that would clearly show Rotational to be in error-- if there exist any such section(s). I suspect there is not, which would explain the continuously slippery and elusive reasoning you (plural) present as the supposed justification for a censure of Rotational. Here is a recap of those slippery claims:

1. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because his edits (picture placement in articles) violates WP:MOS.

2. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because he 'disagrees' with the WP:MOS, so he reverts picture placement edits back to his original layout.

3. RESPONSE: Rotational supplies a word-for-word quote from WP:MOS that clearly shows that he IS following the WP:MOS in his edits concerning picture placement in articles.

4. NEW-CLAIM: The WP:MOS is ambiguous so Rotational should be censured and forced to ignore the word-for-word quote, directly from the WP:MOS, which he provided. EdJohnston and cohorts should 'win' by the sole virtue that there are six of them, ganged together, and only one Rotational.

5. NEW-CLAIM: Although no one other than Rotational has provided any word-for-word quote from WP:MOS to support their position, the part that Rotational has quoted is characterized as an "...uncertainty..."

6. NEW-CLAIM: EdJohnston writes that Rotational has a "....disagreement with the WP:MOS..." based on the fact that Rotational is following the style allowed-- and substantiated-- by the WP:MOS (Joe Hepperle Note: Even I don't understand EdJohnston's thought-flow here. I don't know how a person whom is in full compliance with the WP:MOS can honestly be characterized as having a disagreement with WP:MOS. It would seem that EdJohnston is the one with the "disagreement". The WP:MOS allows the style of picture-placement editing that Rotational is using-- EdJohnston disagrees with that WP:MOS-authorized style.)

Rotational agrees with the WP:MOS. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Joe Hepperle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll also have a try at summarising this whole sorry mess. I'll focus on the image positioning issue here for brevity:

• The MOS guidelines state:
  1. "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."
  2. "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image..."

• The first and second guidelines are contradictory when the first image is a right-facing photo. Everyone agreed?
• Rotational has a personal preference for the first guideline overriding the second. Other editors strongly disagree.

My views are as follows:

• There is no consensus on how to deal with the MOS discrepancy.
• The discrepancy should be resolved by discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers.
• Edit-warring over this discrepancy (by any editor) is disruptive, tendentious and inappropriate.
• Until the discrepancy is resolved, editors should not change article layouts.
• Rotational has repeatedly entered edit wars over this issue, and other ambiguous areas in the MOS.

I believe that editing restrictions are against the spirit of the project, but in this case they are necessary to prevent further disruption to articles. Some of the editors on the other side of the MOS debate have also been stepping pretty close to the line. I'd suggest that everyone calms down and moves swiftly on to WT:MOS to settle this properly rather than trying to attack their opponents. Papa November (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion nominations of images valid within articles

Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) is on what seems to be an apparent crusade against most images I have uploaded, especially regarding fictional characters. If not that, then soap opera articles in general. As seen here, some of his deletion nominations are valid, but there other deletion nominations by him that are plain silly (in my view). Examples would be nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, in addition to Lnlwedding.jpg (which is also quite significant, as I stated there in discussion).

Damiens.rf's sweep deletion nominations of a lot of images I have uploaded is also quite stressing to reply to one by one, and the tag alerts (before I reverted them) took up most of my talk page. Am I really expected to comment on so many image for deletion discussions within the same span of time? And is there nothing that can be done when images are wrongly nominated for deletion like this? Do I have to simply comment on it, and let the file for deletions "decider" resolve this even when the image is perfectly valid within the article? Some of these deletion nominations by Damiens.rf appear to be bad-faith editing, not good-faith. There are other editors who feel this way about some of Damiens.rf's image deletion nominations, and I hope that they comment here on this matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked over all of the nominations, but I do have to say that this appears to be a bit POINTy and nominating this many images for deletion is disruptive as well. Rather than go Twinkle crazy, actually communicating with the uploaders would be the right way to go about this. AniMate^draw 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the first run-in a user has had with Damiens and his image deletion rampage. A quick view just now of his contribs is revealing. Most of the images he sends to Ffd are because they are "Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article.". He also seems to have an agenda regarding any LGBT images which involve any sort of affection between the subjects of the images. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a few of these images are clearly not "decorative," but illustrating key points in articles, like the Noah/Luke kiss screenshot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all of Damiens deletion nominations are valid. It would be wise for Flyer, AniMate and Allstarecho to all learn a little something called WP:AGF. Also, Allstarecho please do not make false allegations. That's extremely disruptive. CADEN ^{is cool} 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of making false allegations, when they aren't false, is also extremely disruptive. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all of these deletion nominations appear to be questionable and possibly part of some kind of vendetta against soap opera images. If you look at the order of his nominations you'll see he went pretty much in the order that the articles appear in the soap opera section of the List of fictional supercouples with a few deviations. Also, he canceled one nomination after I explained how it was valid. My explanation would have been unnecessary had he read the article since what I said was already stated on the page. He doesn't seem to be reading the articles or even the captions to see whether or not each image adds to the article since each nom has almost identical wording and description whether they match or not.

I'm willing to agree that some of the images deserve to be nominated. I'm just not sure Damiens.rf's reasons for the mass noms aren't questionable. Rocksey (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Damien has indicated on his talk that he has no intention of stopping his actions or responding here. Regardless of the merits or non-merits of his actions, refusing to engage with other editors in a collegial manner when asked to do so is not the way to do things. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone they are "welcome to try to give me any contentful adivice", shows they have great contempt for their fellow editor and shows the user is quite arrogant (in this user's opinion). I would recommend all nominations be reversed until Damien comes to this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the predictable support from Caden (cue: AniMate is being a bully), does anyone think these nominations are a good idea? And since when did Twinkle templates and copy pasting the same rationale 50 or so times replace communication? Despite one assertion above, these aren't all decorative and if he's unwilling to communicate in response to our concerns, I suggest his nominations be closed. AniMate^draw 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't blame Damiens for refusing to respond here. More than likely too many editors have burned him in the past. That sort of thing occurs too often on wiki. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He has likely burned too many editors in the past himself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate, all noms should be closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the both of you. Keep all noms. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) 2 to 1 for removal of noms. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do as well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one of us is going to give it a go and remove the nominations or should we let an admin do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin would likely be the one that needs to do this but they seem to be scarce judging from their minimal participation in several threads on this noticeboard that need attention. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins iz taking advantage of temporally localized failure of external fusion lighting function to sleep, eat, game, work (sigh, wanna go home). I recommend placing a note at the top of the section DamienRT started editing in the files for deletion page, pointing here at the discussion, but not removing or blanking or striking the nominations yet. More awakey people can review it and decide to do that or not in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done my own suggestion re. the notification over the nominations under discussion, and am now ending my workday and going home to sleep, eat, probably not game, and not work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am only here now because of chronic insomnia, but I am in no state to deal with complex issues until I finish my sleep- assuming I get the chance. We are not automata, however good a service we try to provide. Rodhullandemu 06:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have temporarily removed his nominations from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 and placed them on those pages respective talk pages, pending the outcome of this issue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, Allstarecho. Please understand that this was not a wise move. The nominations themselve can make no harm by just sitting at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, so there's no urge to remove them. Your move, actually, hinders discussion by hiding the nominations from a broader audience. --Damiens.rf 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite amazing. It's not sufficient to highlight the problem. In fact, Damiens is being referred to as being "on a crusade", engaging in "bad-faith editing", claims of him violating WP:POINT (by a poster who hasn't reviewed the entire case no less), being on a "deletion rampage", inferring he has an LGBT agenda, having a vendetta against soap opera images, has contempt for fellow editors, and is arrogant. Has not a one of you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith???????? From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil...and assume good faith" The miserable conduct displayed by several editors in this section is appalling. You are blatantly violating core principles of Wikipedia. If you can't comment on a disagreement without casting aspersions on the editor you are in disagreement with, then don't comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho

As I stated above, "I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment."

Allstarecho is quite familiar with Damiens.rf's editing style, and has seen these types of silly deletion nominations with Damiens.rf before. After an editor does what Damiens.rf has done this many times, it is quite difficult to assume good faith in that. This editor hardly replies about his deletion nominations when challenged, such as not commenting on them in files for deletion when they are challenged. Why? Because he almost always feels that he is right regarding deletion nominations, no matter what. Is that not arrogance in cases where he is clearly wrong? What is appalling is that an editor on Wikipedia is allowed to get away with what Damiens.rf has been getting away with, or at least getting away with sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• While an interesting response, it fails to address why it is necessary to assume bad faith in reacting to this situation. Assuming bad faith doesn't bring any greater ability to the table than assuming good faith here. Further, the insults cast at Damiens are wholly unnecessary. Lastly, this is content dispute, and not much of an incident if at all. You disagree with him on content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is an incident for the reasons I stated above. You disagree? That is fine. But I cannot assume good faith in what I strongly feel is bad-faith editing. It is not that different than addressing a vandal, in my view. I am not truly calling Damiens.rf a vandal, but these types of irrational deletion nominations are very disruptive to Wikipedia in a way similar to the unconstructive edits of a vandal. He is experienced in nominating images for deletion and knows the rules, and yet he often goes after perfectly valid images. I am suppose to see that as a mistake, when he has done it so many times? If so, it is a costly mistake that he should have learned from by now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now you're referring to his edits as irrational? Flyer, cut it out. Now. He obviously does not feel they are perfectly valid or he would not have nominated them for deletion. You disagree with the validity, that's all. Your disagreement with his assessment of validity doesn't make him irrational or a bad faith editor. Assuming bad-faith is disruptive to wikipedia, not nominating something for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Some of his deletion nominations are irrational, yes. As I stated on my talk page, reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also about reporting incidents you feel are unjust and the reason for it. If one wants to call that assuming bad faith, then so be it. But I felt that what I stated was useful, as did other editors here. We are not some lynch mob going after an innocent editor here; this is an editor we feel are consistently acting in bad-faith. Removing his nominations were noted as highly inappropriate, but what I stated here was noted as valid by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a question of us calling your actions assuming bad faith. You called your actions that yourself. Yet, you've failed to come up with any reason why assuming bad faith helps resolve this issue. Instead, we're just supposed to take it on good faith that your assumption of bad faith makes your case stronger. Do you see the hypocrisy here? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it is not a question of people here calling my actions assuming bad faith. You, however, did say that my actions were assuming bad faith. It is not about my coming up with a reason that assuming bad faith solves anything. It is about my feeling that what I reported on this matter, including my feelings about it (some of which you call assuming bad faith) does help to solve this problem. And has helped. I see no hypocrisy on my part regarding this matter, and have already stated my feelings on this matter. I see no point in continuing to "debate" about it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at some of the noms and !voted on them. It appears that Damiens mass-nominated all fair use images in certain articles except fot the first fair use image at the top of the article. Now, the articles had too many fair use images, so most images were nominated correctly, but some noms were incorrect because there was a critical commentary so they weren't only for decorative purposes. That being said, the captions in the photos didn't make explicit that the justification existed, at least one of the photos was placed very far away from its corresponding critical commentary, and the placement of the photos gave the impression that they were only decorative. Also, some of the photos are borderline, and even some of the ones with commentary could wind up deleted.

To me, it seems a typical case of several editors having diverging opinions on how many non-free images you can fit into an article with breaching wikipedia's fair use policy. (IMHO, as a personal assesment of what path of action would serve wikipedia better, editors who want to keep the photos should improve the captions and placement of the ones that have commentary about them, instead of complaining about them being nominated. Photos with no commentary should have a proper commentary added or be removed.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric, thank you for taking the time to vote on some of these images. I get your point about not complaining. But, as stated above, I felt that this incident was in need of complaining about. It was not simply a matter of disagreeing with an editor, or else I would not have taken it here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical comment of the deletion template

Please don't put a "|" character between the caption of the photo and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read the captions. Maybe this a Twinkle problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Wholesale removals of properly formatted and not obviously disruptive file deletion nominations may be sanctioned as vandalism unless there is clear and sustained consensus for such removal. The nominations currently visible on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 are not obviously disruptive because they provide deletion rationales that are not prima facie unreasonable. Whether these rationales have any merit is to be decided in the individual deletion nominations themselves, but very similar nominations could probably be merged into one discussion thread.  Sandstein  16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC):03

You apparently are missing the discussion regarding how the noms came to be in the first place. The image rampage, and that's what it is, is currently being disputed and therefore they should be removed until the matter is settled. I'll also note that since my actions, the user has now taken to having issues with an article I wrote, no doubt on purpose. I'm just appalled to see hours later that nothing has been done regarding this wholesale image deletion spree. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous whining from editors and administrators who should know better. Damiens.rf has a long history of NFCC enforcement, which (speaking from experience) is one of the most difficult jobs on the project due to the emotional ties some editors have with their articles, and their insistence on seeing any sort of action against them as a "crusade" or POINTy behavior. Guess what: The rules apply to everyone equally. Yesterday it was TV shows and album discographies and Australian politicians. Today it's soap operas. Tomorrow it will be some other topic that has too many non-free images. To those accusing Damiens.rf of whatever it is he's being accused of: It's not about you. Stop trying to turn it into a personal battle. Show how your images meet the rules, or make them meet the rules, or shut the f up.</rant> howcheng {chat} 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "rant" was doing just fine until you said "shut the f up" and all the points you made were completely wiped out by that one sentence. Sad, you actually made a good point or two in there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Howcheng and Sandstein; hear hear. Not offended by "shut the f up", though it could have been better put. --John (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's nice to see someone making an effort to enforce non-free content policy, and we ought to be grateful for that; at the same time, it's a shame that they are apparently not taking enough care when deciding what should be nominated for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In that going even a little too far almost always causes a backlash like this one here, it's an area which requires great delicacy and care to avoid unnecessary confrontations, which are ultimately highly counterproductive.

In that light, I am not happy at all with the situation. The bad feelings this has caused are not helping rational NFCC work.

Recall that Betacommand eventually got shown the door. Even if the policy agrees that this type of work is required, even if someone has to do it, there are times where the person doing it is the wrong person. I don't think Damien is necessarily a permanent problem - but the initial approach was far too pushy, and there's a perfectly legitimate need that he be urged to dial it back to avoid having this sort of blowup happen again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@NeutralHomer: that's why it was a rant. :) howcheng {chat} 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I do not feel that anything I have stated on this matter has been ridiculous, nor was I trying to make it mainly personal. But if you come back to Wikipedia one day and see your talk page filled with image deletion nomination tags, some of which are valid images, you try not to be highly annoyed and feel that it may very well be about you. This was done after Damiens.rf had already nominated two images of mine, one of a non-fictional nature, a few days ago (which, yeah, he had a point in nominating those for deletion). It's difficult not to think that he has gone through your contributions snooping for images you have uploaded. In this case, I see now, however, that he was likely targeting images through List of fictional supercouples, like Rocksey noted above. The problem, despite any annoyance I have had with Damiens.rf about this matter, is that some of his image deletion nominations are plain wrong. And his doing this with a lot of images in one swoop is a problem, especially in regards to editors who have valid images up but are too "whatever" about things to speak up about the matter or do not come on Wikipedia as often to defend or tweak their image placement/commentary in time so that those images may be spared. I am glad that several editors here have not "shut the f up" about this matter. I agree with SheffieldSteel and Georgewilliamherbert. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus we have our policy WP:AGF. Regardless of whatever slight you might feel, you are instructed to always believe that the other editor is working in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But instead, you jumped to conclusions that he "must" be out to get you in some way. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that we must always assume good faith. But that is not true. When an editor is acting in clear vandalism, do we assume good faith then as well? No. It is the same when an editor sees very sketchy editing, which is why they report things on this page. I just happened to state what I felt (like some other editors who report other editors here), instead of keeping it to myself when it is obvious that I am not assuming good faith. Furthermore, I already made it clear that my reporting Damiens.rf was not simply or even mainly about believing that he was "out to get me." And judging by the replies here, my report was more than valid (whether a few people are displeased with a bit of my wording in it or not). Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I wouldn't bother pointing Flyer22 towards WP:AGF. I've tried and failed. He wants to assume bad faith. For whatever reason, he feels this makes his position stronger. Apparently telling the world that Damiens is on a crusade, is violating WP:POINT, is irrational, and acting in bad faith adds a great deal of weight to Flyer22's position. I don't see how personally, but I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a "he." If you had read the beginning part of my user page addressing a little bit about me, you would know that. Second of all, I am not some child who needs a lesson in assuming good faith. I have tried to explain to you this matter and failed. I do not want to assume bad faith. When I see bad-faith editing, I call it out as that, as do many editors on Wikipedia. You want to assume good faith in even obvious bad-faith editing, then go right ahead. But I will never do so. Your type of approach is what would allow obvious pedophile-pushers to continue to push their pro-pedophile agenda on the Pedophilia article here and articles similar to it. Editors such as me who have seen these pedophile-pushers time and time again, or types like them, and know the signs, never assume good faith in their editing. We often report them here and get them blocked. And you know what? It is a damn good thing. We report them straight up as having an agenda, not as "Oh, maybe this editor is just extremely naive to what pedophilia is about and only seems as though he is in support of pedophilia tendencies and child molestation." Yes, my comments are often logical. You don't think so. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you are not a child, then certainly you can see the logic failure in assuming bad faith without any productive output of same. You want to assume bad faith without productive results. I am not particularly interested in whether you view yourself as a child or not. I am particularly interested in you stopping the assumption of bad faith when (a) it is clearly not the case and (b) it produces nothing of benefit. But, I will have to be content with being dismayed at your apparent inability to follow one of our core policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support the removal of the noms -- Damien nominated an picture that I did not upload, but that I was able to come up with a pretty easy Fair Use rationale given how it was used in the article (Trevor Hoffman) -- it's the type of image (picture of a living person on a magazine cover) that is often misused, so it has had to be justified before, but that his nomination is cursory gave me pause. It looks like he hasn't looked over the discussion of the image before. Further study (such as the Time magazine Toscanini cover) suggests that he's not drawing a distinction between those images that are abusing Fair Use and those that are probably on the fair side of it, or at least need a rationale beyond, "we already know what he looks like" to justify deleting (in that article, the magazine cover was tied to a section on media reception and growing popularity, for which a magazine cover seems strongly justified, in my view). Some of these things can be debated, but it shouldn't be up to the concerned editors to determine which of a large list of deletions needs careful reviewing and which are part of a campaign to remove magazine covers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Most nominated covers really seem to fit the bill of "decorative cover", including some overuses like almost a dozen non-free images in an infobox, or 6 or 8 non-free covers fitted in one gallery. I have been checking the articles that contain the photos, and I see that Damiens has skipped many non-free images that appeared to be justified, and, for example, if an article had two covers, he only nominated the second one.

In that particular image, I agree that it should be kept, but I would have made the same nomination as Damiens, since a) a strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 would have that image removed anyways b) he was nominating tens of covers that are being used in "media reception" sections for no reason at all, so it's easy that this one slipped by. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't "strictly interpret" NFCC #8. It is totally subjective and open enough to interpretation that it causes far more grief than necessary. It shouldn't be - as written - sufficient in and of itself to offhandedly delete an image. And as all this is going on are you folks aware of this spin on the whole thing? Wiggy! (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)