Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252

When will South Philly stop harrassing me?

I have to question when South Philly (talk · contribs) is going to stop trying to harrass me. I thought with the cessation of Evrik's attempts to appoint himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards, South Philly's abusive messages would cease, but apparently not. Actually, that last one was an attack on Kathryn NicDhàna as well, who supported the removal of Evrik as coordinator and really was utterly non-confrontational throughout. South Philly is utterly loyal to Evrik, to the point of nominating an certified RfC against him for deletion last week claiming that the five pages of evidence was just spurious and should be deleted. If South Philly can combine defending Evrik and attacking me, all the better; thus he signed an outside statement on the RfC in which it was claimed the LGBT community, and more specifically, me and Jeffpw, were deliberately targetting Evrik, written by someone who we strongly believe is a sockpuppet of a user banned for disrupting LGBT articles. South Philly has now nominated WikiProject Awards for deletion, which, beyond being too ironic for words that his basis for doing so is "excessive bureaucracy", is simply an attempt, once again, to get at me - which is just bizarre given I don't really care and haven't posted there for weeks. However, it's kinda POINTy because with the demise of Barnstar proposals, the WikiProject is more necessary than ever for help with new awards, be it design, or wording or whatever.

I find it unlikely that South Philly is going to give up his disruptive habits (which he also appears to be pursuing with Radiant! as well, but I can't comment on that) or vendetta against me in the near future, and as my time on Wikipedia is very limited, restricted mainly to minor edits and comments, I thought I'd detail it here for the future reference of any admins who may wish to watch him. I am certainly getting very fed up with this snidely little comments appearing everywhere because South Philly didn't get his way that one time. DevAlt 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, which doesn't amount too much, but this all stems from the "necessary" WikiProject Awards. Anyone else see the irony in that? I was belittled at the MfD for calling the project disruptive and pointless. Not that any of this matters. Sorry if no one cares to hear my opinion. IvoShandor 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments Ivo is referring to were not from me, btw. However, the "disruption" was caused by Evrik and South Philly, ended some time ago as far as WP:AWARDS is concerned, and have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the project itself. Your reply was not the most edifying either, though, Ivo. DevAlt 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Having had no interactions (afaik) with South Philly for months now, and having barely interacted with him even during the WP:Awards situation (where SP and Evrik were trying to run the thing, and got very angry when other editors came in and made it democratic) I was very surprised at his odd post on my talk page today (linked above), and his screeds that some "gay cabal" is out to get him. It seems he cannot let go of what happened at WP:AWARDS. I looked at his recent contribs, and it appears to me that, rather than working on the encyclopedia, he is taking up lots of people's time with WP:POINT activities and subtle or not-so-subtle jabs and attacks on other editors. I think he needs to get constructive or take a time out. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize ANI was here to enlighten everyone. I was just pointing out that this all stemmed from the project. Sorry if you don't like that, that project has been nothing but a problem, but we are all entitled to our own opinions. Your response is, of course, your opinion too, and I didn't mean to imply that the comments were from you, just thought it was ironic that there is a report on ANI related to a project that I was told doesn't disrupt anything. I can't comment on the other stuff, for the record, however, I was one of the editors who came in and headed off evrik's attempts to declare himself coordinator. IvoShandor 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, IvoShandor. SouthPhilly is insulting people. That's the problem. Raystorm 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits to Kamikaze

An anonymous editor has been reverted sourced content in this article. Each edit is from a different IP in Japan (and the IP is used only once for this edit). The sentence taken out refers to conscript Koreans serving as Kamizazes in World War II. Requests to discuss this deletion (first on edit summaries, and most recently at Talk:Kamikaze#Korean_Kamikaze_pilots_.28part_2.29) are being ignored. Questions:

• Is there anything else that can be done?
• Will continued reversions of these unexplained deletions of sourced content be considered a content dispute, edit war, or 3-revert violation?

Kablammo 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not doing it anymore, so I would think it has stopped. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been a slow-moving sequence, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] but they'll be back. Kablammo 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And it continues: [13][14][15]; repeated requests to discuss are being ignored. Kablammo 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put a three-day semi on it, maybe that will discourage them. --Golbez 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce and edit summaries

Burntsauce (talk · contribs) has been asked on three separate occasions by three seperate users to start using edit summaries as his edits are either adding {{unreferenced}} tags to articles, prodding an article, tagging the article for speedy deletion or AfDing an article. As he uses no tags for these and edits large varieties or articles at a time it's impossible to know what he is doing to articles without going through each and every edit (as seen here). There would be no problem if he was actually editing articles but as he seems to only add tags to articles while not contributing to any article it makes it a necessity he uses edit summaries. Could an admin please request, or more forcibly, get him to begin using edit summaries? He has ignored and deleted every request on his talk page to begin using edit summaries. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can force him to use edit summaries. If he doesn't want to, then let him be. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is when the edits are deletion requests, part of their policy requires an edit summary so its known the article has been listed for deletion (eith afd, prod or speedy). –– Lid^(Talk) 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Notification that one has proposed an article for deletion is a courtesy, not a requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree that drive-by cleanup tagging without edit summary is a rude and unhelpful thing to do, drive-by deletion nomination without edit summary crosses the line into disruptive behaviour.

Think about it–suppose that one editor has an article watchlisted. This editor assumes that an edit by another etablished editor (Burntsauce, in this cause) is probably reasonable, or at least non-vandalism. (Figure it was only a eleven characters, and WP:AGF.) The article disappears five days later, because the edit was actually to add a PROD tag.

Burntsauce has been here for three months. Either he learns to use edit summaries for major edits (edits that dramatically alter an article's content, or edits which may result in an article's deletion) or he loses his editing privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't force him to do so, but indeed it is pretty rude and unhelpful to drive-by slap a cleanup tag without making an effort to explain why you feel it deserves that cleanup tag, through edit summaries or the talk page. Krimpet (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with the above. It makes him a jerk in these instances, but nothing we can do. -M^ask? 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You can notify him of this thread. Maybe that would change his habits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Burntsauce to provide descriptive edit summaries when he nominates articles for deletion in the future. Please notify me if he should fail to do so in the future; I am prepared to take any necessary enforcement action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's improper to nominate articles for XfD or PROD without any notification in the edit summary. If the editor has been pointed to the deletion policy, asked to comply, yet doess not change his behavior then it becomes an issue for enforcrment. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How long is too long?

Resolved

 – Joxerman blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Joxerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently vandalized Atlantic Records, and when I went to look at his talk page, I noticed that he had well, numerous last warnings from about 20 days ago. The Vadalism report page doesn't really specify a "reasonable" time period in between vandalism attacks to get it listed there, so i'm kinda wondering what is the acceptable time frame?293.xx.xxx.xx 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... I never seen a vandal only account getting warned again numerous times. Usually for most, if they continue to vandalise after their fourth and final warning given to them, they will be blocked indefinitely. There isn't any specific time frame I guess. It really depends. Terence 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I count at least 3 "last warnings", then the guy stops, and continues again with a good edit, then a copycat vandalism that is causing problems at Atlantic Records. Surely one of the last warnings counts as the final warning? --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked before this discussion started! Often it's not worth an admins time to paste blocked messages on these troll's accounts so it's worth looking at the block log. Thanks/wangi 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Now I know.....--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are not relevant if the account is only used for trolling/vandalism as the block log statement and the user's contributions indicate. We usually block vandalism-only accounts for an indefinite period of time. If you see our policy page regarding blocks, which is WP:BLOCK, you can see under the section titled Duration of blocks it states the following: blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration. I should also point out that indefinite is not equivalent to infinite, users can always appeal their indefinite blocks and there have been many cases where user's who used accounts solely for vandalism have promised to stop in order to have their accounts unblocked.--Jersey Devil 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting editing and personal attacks by Rert2

Rert2 is a single purpose account (See: contributions) he disrupts discussions at the Talk:Audio_mastering by attacking me personally. He continues to place an external link to an Amazon.com book, written by a mastering engineer on the subject of mastering. (See: [16][17][18][19] disregarding the fact that there is a template at the talk page that urges all editors to discuss any proposed external links or additions to the present article. In the past, such type of links have been dismissed as inappropriate, per WP Links normally to be avoided. First of all, his personal attacks have been unwarranted and geared to divert attention (See: [20][21][22] He claims here that I call myself a "spammer" [23][24] [25] and he had been warned 4 times to stop (See: [26][27][28][29]) In addition, another user who goes under "VinylJoe" seems to be in connection or in agreement with rert2 and without further discussions. (See [contributions]. This raises the possibility that Rert2 maybe using sock puppetry to get a greater consensus for the inclusion of said inappropriate external link. I hope you can help stop this disrupting and bad faith user. Thank you. Jrod2 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have looked through all the links that you provided shows that disruptive editing by Rert2. but I think that he might have made numerous sockpuppets to disrupt the wikipedia. Daniel 5127 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet needing attention

Trolldor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restoring content that has been deleted, originally created by Eternal dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This includes creating amusing redirects like Psycho bitch to Paris Hilton, etc. I smell WP:SOCKs. Could someone please block? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx (talk · contribs)

Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive editor who frequently engages in incivility, tendentious editing, and edit warring, as demonstrated by his block log. he has shown complete disdain for Wikipedia policy for well over a year now, and he continues unabated- with recent incivility (i.e. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), edit warring (for which he was blocked recently, please see his contributions post-block), tendentious editing (i.e. [37], [38][39]). he also refers to me abusively as "Intaqallah", both on- ([40], [41]) and off-wiki, the latter being when he was unashamedly soliciting meatpuppets to "vote-away" in an AfD and edit war on select articles, in the interests of gaming Wikipedia. he does not heed the warnings given to him by multiple administrators, and his talk page is testament to that. ITAQALLAH 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do about it? Viridae^Talk 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

whatever you deem reasonable in ceasing the personal attacks, incivility, and other inappropriate behaviour. i do request some sort of intervention, apologies if i wasn't specific with that. ITAQALLAH 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Itaqallah should cool down a bit. He himself reverts at least as much as Mike18xx, and misspellings of his user name such as "Intaqallah" can hardly be seen as "abusive", unless one is somehow very focused on finding "reasons" for making allegations of "personal attacks". If Itaqallah (better check that again for typo's, or it will come back hard on me it seems...), is so sensitive about how other editors spell his user name, then perhaps he could choose a new more common English user name, that other editors are more likely to remember the spelling of. This being said, Itaqallah has been extremely active in his attempts to get users that disagree with his personal opinions removed and banned from the English Wikipedia, and among other things he has previously made attempts to get me banned from at least parts of the 'pedia [42]. Perhaps Itaqallah should try to work with other editors instead of harassing them with his constant attempts to get them banned. For now it seems that he haven't made a single contribution to Mike's discussion page, except for a couple of templates regarding an image. In my opinon, Itaqallah should consider actually working with people, instead of harassing them with requests about them get banned. -- Karl Meier 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue is more serious than "Itaqallah should consider actually working with people" Karl. My main concern would not be Mike 18xx's uncivility or his 9 times blocks, mainly for uncivility, but solliciting meatpuppets. This issue re solliciting meatpuppets at Faith Freedom International blog has been discussed a couple of months ago here at the AN/I and now it is getting disruptive with Tauphon (talk · contribs) as well. So action needs to be taken. I cannot do anythng as i've been involved in a debate w/ Mike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiislam (conflict of interests?) and probably my action would not be appropriate as my username would be a "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" for Mike 18xx. So which is important? "Itaqallah needing to work better w/ others" or all these disruptions and uncivility? Meatpuppeting should stop once and for all and Mike 18xx should consider actually working with people in a civil manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why it should be a problem that an editor go to a website that he has created an article about, and mention this on the sites forum. The users of the websites is likely to be some of the best informed people regarding what perhaps makes it notable, and their input might very well be useful in the process of determining whether or not it is indeed notable and should be kept or deleted. Another fact is that the point about soliciting meat-puppets doesn't make sense either. First, an AfD is not a vote, it is a debate, second, any "votes" from new and/or unregistered contributers doesn't count. It doesn't make sense to blame him for the actions of Tauphon. Mike, like all other editors is only responsible for his own actions, and he has as far as I know never supported him in any wrong doing anywhere. Any speculations about what might have motivated him to come here is also only just that; Speculations that is entirely irrelevant to Mike's good standing on Wikipedia. What I frankly more worried about is Itaqallah's obvious stalking of editors outside Wikipedia, where he take it upon himself to monitor various forum's for comments made by Wikipedians, in order to attack them here. As you properly know, this is not the first time he has used the results of his off-site monitoring efforts to attack people here. As for his comments regarding your surname, I'd wish he haven't done that. As an administrator that actually seems to genuinely care about remaining reasonably neutral, I don't think you deserve to have such accusations and suspicions raised against you. I don't know if he has already apologized for it, but perhaps he will do the right thing if you ask him? As for his block log, I believe it is also important to notice that he has only been blocked one time the last eight months, and that was for a 3RR. The other issues in the block-log seems to be mostly a thing of the past. I believe the best solution would be that Itaqallah give up his project monitoring editors outside Wikipedia and end his constant attempts to have editors disagree with banned. Mike should on the other hand be more careful about what he accuses people off in heated moments and remember that this is against policy. It would properly help to clean the air a lot if he admit that he was wrong about making such accusations and insinuations. -- Karl Meier 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you've noted from my words, all i ask from Mike 18xx is to behave in a civil manner and avoid controversies. He's just not a newbie. We don't have to waste our time arguing about matpuppeting. It is just highly inappropriate according to the policy. We don't have to waste our time arguing about Mike 18xx meatpuppeting: Everyone please attend to the revert war on Wikipedia's FFI page concerning Intaqalla's repeated attempts to marginalize and POV the WikiIslam section. All I need are one or two people to revert. Please also keep track of whether or not Intaqalla violates Wikipedia's 3RR policy. So as you see, the solliciting isn't limited to votes but to edit warring and game the system to get someone else blocked for 3RR. Noway!

As for my username, i just don't need an apology as it doesn't matter if someone calls me X or "my mamma". He is invited to read these quotes.

• "We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box." - Anon.
• "They stick you with those names, those labels -- ‘rebel’ or whatever; whatever they like to use. Because they need a label; they need a name. They need something to put the price tag on the back of." - Johnny Depp -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl, i don't really have the time to deal with much of what you wrote about me - not only is much of it pretty fanciful, you certainly are not an impartial party here given our history. you noted that Mike had only one block in the past eight months. that would appear reasonable, were it not for the fact he went on a hiatus in October, returning days before he was blocked again. you employ an incredible amount of spin to downplay Mike's soliciting of meatpuppets, gross incivility, and his deliberate baiting, yet you appear quite eager to take pot-shots at my own person for issues which you have blown out of proportion. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah: I am sure that you don't have much time replying to comments about your stalking and endless attempts to have editors that disagree with your personal opinions banned. Tracking down Wikipedian's down off-site must be a time consuming business. It is true that Mike18xx was not very active on Wikipedia during a few months, and it is also true that he was "welcomed" back by you with sometimes sarcastic comment such as "having trouble logging in Mike?". Anyway, you don't have to reply to my comments. You just have to end your crusade to have editors disagreeing with your personal opinions banned. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF: To post what was posted at that forum is of course the most appropriate one can think of, but at the same time I believe off site staking of Wikipedian's is something that much worse. I believe it is something that can really discourage a lot people from editing here. I still remember BhaiSaab who took his off-site stalking as far as calling the workplace of a person that he disagreed with. The intend of his off-site stalking I believe was to drive people he disagreed with away from the site, just like Itaqallah use his off-site "investigations" to get rid of people that he disagree with. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier, it should go without saying that off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppetry is inappropriate, and I see nothing wrong with Itaqallah keeping an eye on it. Can you blame him, seeing as he's been twice been specifically identified as an enemy editor? Soliciting meatpuppetry is bad enough, but urging FFI participants to scrutinize particular editors borders on harassment, and is completely unacceptable. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.Proabivouac 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I had extensive interaction with him on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination), and not in an exactly "allied" way - however, I never found him to be especially incivil, or in any way disruptive - rather, he just seems to be determined, outspoken, and edits with feeling. I actually quite liked discussing with him - although my opinion on the matter was eventually disagreed with by the debate, I still think my discussions with him played an important role. --Haemo 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. I picked more or less the top four contributions of his just now [43], [44], [45] and [46] and in my view there isn't a collegial edit in the bunch. I'm not sure this user has learned much from previous blocks. I don't think I'd care to edit in the same areas as him as it would be less than pleasant. That's the definition of a (mildly) disruptive editor if you ask me. I admit bias, I've blocked him before after he didn't heed warnings to be less disruptive in his approach. I'd support at least an admonishment that his approach is in need of changing. But of course, pure civility blocks don't often work. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that there has been an effort to resolve this dispute, a user-conduct RfC might be considered. I suppose this section qualifies as such an attempt if there has not been one already, and I urge Mike18xx to respond to it in a productive spirit.Proabivouac 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All measures should be preventive and not punitive. Following this logic, Mike 18xx should refrain from meatpuppeting and chill out in order to avoid being uncivil. If there was no meatpuppetry there would have been no off-site stalking. Anyone has the total legitimate right to follow my off-site activities which are directly related to the functioning of wikipedia. In this case, Itaqallah found out that there is a massive meatpuppetry based on the All I need are one or two people to revert strategy. Would you accept to ask people to do the same Karl? I am certain you wouldn't. This is an unacceptable thing in wikipedia. We stand firm against harming the smooth process of how stuff work here. Itaqallah doesn't go foruming, voting and disrupting the off-wiki site. Mike 18xx has been doing just that. So i don't quite understand how you legitimate Mike's actions by accusing Itaqallah of something that wikipedia has no business w/. One is free to browse any page in the net and report to wikipedia about things that could harm it. I tell those people that We don't vote and we don't count them & We do not encourage edit warring indeed- we just discuss. I'll leave the civility issues for anyone else who might be interested to discuss them with Mike. So whether he would follow out train or else he could just easily change at the next station. There are many other busy passengers as there are trains. We don't need passengers avoiding payment (come to vote once in a year) and we need our train to preserve and protect its standards so we can attract more passengers (new editors who have much more to give to this project than a single seasonal vote). Anyway, it is time for the user in question to respond. Itaqallah has already said his bit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please.... To paraphrase Rodney King, Can't we all just be honest? They say I'm tendentious, uncivil and distruptive -- my goodness, you'd almost think I was being accused of not getting my facts right in the articles...except I'm not being accused of that here. In fact, I'd submit that this business is going the way it's going because I am getting my facts right in the articles, and some people find it very unpleasant when a cherished belief is skewered on the spit of a reference. To boil this broth down to its essence, FayssalF and Itaqallah do not appreciate the contributions of many editors (of which I am only one) to various Islam-relating articles, and are well-versed in laying about the Administrative Cudgel to get their way. This has been going on for years, and I doubt it's going to stop anytime soon. I see little to alter my expectations that it's probably going to get worse in the future. Personal mail: I urge you to respond to them with a productive spirit, aiming to address these complaints and resolve the dispute. --Proabivouac. I receive strong indication that there will never be any satisfactory "resolution" to the "dispute" short of complete "Submission" (a double-entendre) before the concerted campaign to savage articles by bad-faith AfDing absolutely everything in sight and drawing upon their own networks of supporters to swing in and post "delete"s regardless of merit. What can't be deleted will be neutered, merged, smooshed, crunched, reverted, marginalized and mangled down into as small of a nearly invisible and innocuous a pellet as possible. Maintaining a "productive spirit" is extraordinarly difficult amidst such destruction.

You will do whatever you are going to do, and whatever the resultant effect upon article veracity is will in turn affect Wikipedia's credibility as a source of accurate and pertinent information in matters occupying the great void between dry scientific obscura and cartoon episode guides. Such credibility is forfeit in the blink of an eye in the internet age, and, once lost, virtually impossible to recover.--Mike18xx 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx, think practically: let's suppose just for the sake of argument that Itaqallah and FayssalF want you gone, as you say, because you are adding facts to the articles that they don't like. Okay. They can't just say that, because that's not against policy, so they point to things like incivility, meatpuppet solicitation and edit-warring instead. Okay. So don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. There, you see, I've accepted your assumptions at face value, without judgment or rebuttal, and the way forward is still exactly the same.Proabivouac 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We want you gone or not gone. Choose your train. I am focusing on MEATPUPPETING. It is in bold. I am not talking about your uncivility (i am proud of my name as you are - plus don't forget that your username is biblical and therefore it is middle-eastern as well. So next time be accurate and say Arab or Muslim so people would understand better what you mean). So talk about it. Don't talk about your edits as i haven't mentioned them at all. I may not like edits of a dozen of editors but still this is wikipedia where anyone can edit. Meatpuppeting encouraging edit warring is not acceptable. Instead of aknowledging what you've done wrong you are still trying to talk about cakes. We got rules here. As per Proabivouac, don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. So again and again, you stop or you'll be stopped. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know perfectly well why you don't want to talk about article veracity, FayssalF. As regards to the rest, I dare you to claim with a straight face that Wikipedia Muslims aren't organized. Why, look at this! See? Everybody's doing it -- except that one side isn't mounting a hypocritical jihad over artificial differences in order to silence its critics.--Mike18xx 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

that's right. myself and Matt57, a user who i frequently disagree with (to put it lightly), are part of a cabal, because he asked me to prove Ibn Warraq was a reliable source (which he isn't). you've shot yourself in the foot in spectacular fashion, Mike, and have simply vindicated peoples' comments about your approach. ITAQALLAH 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx. Till this moment, you haven't answered and defended yourself re the accusations which are backed by facts above. Failing to do that, i'd consider this thread as a waste of time and choose another path as per Proabivouac → RfC. What do you think? Would you acknowledge your wrongdoings and promise to stop them or would you gamble by going thru an RfC? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To chime in, I only recently came across this user in the Jihad Watch AfD. That and the post history shows very clearly a user with an anti-Islam axe to grind, with "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" being a rather notable slur. Tarc 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick look through your contributions on articles such as Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Hamas makes it obvious to me that you yourself are not entirely without opinions, Tarc. I can understand that you may be annoyed that the article that you mention above wasn't deleted, and that Mike voted against your wishes, but the media attention it has received should have made it obvious to you that the articles subject was clearly and without any doubt notable. The debate just reflected that reality. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl, what can be said about X can be said about Y. Please focus on the issue or else we would just fill this thread w/ unnecessary talk. People are talking about incivility, edit warring and i personally focus on meatpuppeting. We got all these issues and you are talking about the opinions of someone else? Irrelevant and i am afraid if this goes on i'd just consider it as an avoidance to discuss the issues on hand. Mike is being accused w/ incivility and meatpuppeting and that are supported by facts presented by Itaqallah. So let's talk about incivility and meatpuppeting. Would Mike18xx aknowledge that? If yes, would he promise to stop it? Talking about anything else outside this scope would be irrelevant. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusation that Tarc made was that Mike18xx is somehow biased in his contributions. I believe it is very relevant to see such accusations in the light of what appear to be the opinions of the accuser himself. In Tarc's case, a quick look through his contributions gives me reasons to believe that his opinions are very different from the opinions of Mike18xx. -- Karl Meier 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that has any bearing on the accusation - if Bill O'Reilly told me Ted Kennedy was a drunk, does that affect the truth of the allegation? Moreover, I don't see why "bias" is a big deal, in either direction - the point is if they meet Wikipedia standards for good editing practices. --Haemo 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to the subject please? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarc wrote that Mike18 has an "anti-Islam axe to grind". Whats wrong with that? Some people like Islam here, some dont. It shows up in our edits. If anyone hates candy, they'll go to the Candy article and talk about its harmful effects. Someone who loves candy will put in the benefits of Candy. Thats how an article is made from different viewpoints. Same is the case with Islam. I raised this issue of "POV" on a Talk page of a policy here but no one responded there. I dont like Islam, there and it shows up in my edits. There are many people who like Islam a lot and that shows up in their edits. I dont see anything wrong with that. All that matters is that viewpoints contributed are relevant, balanced with each other, sourced and scholarly etc, thats all. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Karl, yes, I have a certain point of view. We all do. The problem is that a single-minded POV coupled with such a vile and bigotry-tinged attitude is what leads people like Itaqallah to drag people like mike into the administrative noticeboard. Don't think for a moment that I am comparable to this person. And no, I was not "upset" that the article was not deleted. That was a rather silly/spurious comment to make. Finally, if you're going to trawl though my contributions, then be sure to take note that they run the gamut from the Brady Bunch to Gertrud (novel), as well as Middle East affairs. Tarc 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Matt. Tarc intervention was out of line and discussing it further would be just a waste of time and space. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, FayssalF, your patience is commendable. If there is any ambiguity in our policy re off-wiki mass solicitations to meatpuppetry, there shouldn't be: where the evidence is clear, as it is here, users who do them should be blocked (at the least) until they agree to stop, lest they find another WP issue to become attached to, and be likewise moved to misconduct. All the rest of this is a distraction to our purposes in this thread (though they may not be in an RfC.)

Mike18xx, I don't mean to sound smarmy, but you must not realize how patiently and graciously you're being treated here. Given your unproductive approach to this thread, and in light of your block log, he or any other administrator could have blocked you for a month (for example) without much dissent. An RfC isn't a block, but may be the last step before Arbitration or a community ban.Proabivouac 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of this dispute, but I was asked to comment. I've just received an extraordinarily bad-faith personal attack on my talk page from Matt57, because I want to use as a source in Islamophobia an academic that he feels is too junior. [47]

He may be right about the source, and I've put up an article RfC to see whether others agree. [48] But in Matt's eyes, the very fact that I might want to use this source shows I'm ... well, I'm not sure ... I'm assuming some sort of Islamist jihadist. He wrote to me: "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing that you personally contacted Mr. Hasan to retreive [sic] his picture and insert the non-notable opinions of this really unknown user with no authority on Islamic matters (needless to say graduate assistant doesnt count), my questions were answered." [49]

My experience over the last two-and-a-half years of editing is that there's a group of users who consistently make anti-Islam edits, and sometimes extreme anti-Islam edits, behavior that includes trying to get rid of intelligent arguments in defense of Islam, or at least in reply to its critics. To reply to Matt, yes, this is a problem, and it's not how NPOV is supposed to work. We're not here to provide people with a pro- or anti-Islam platform, and I hope you'll try to assume good faith of people you disagree with in future, at least until they demonstrate more clearly that you really do have reason not to assume it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, how was any of what I said an "extraordinarily bad-faith personal attack "? This is really funny. All I said that you were putting in the opinions of someone who is not a voice on Islamic matters, let alone notable. What you were putting in was a violation of WP:RS (which I've discussed in more detail on the Talk page there). And it was not I who said Jehanzeb Hasan is junior, it is you who said it. He is not even a Junior scholar on Islam, he is a plain non-notable graduate assitant at a university. Bad or good faith, thats not the issue here. The issue here is, we cant allow any unknown XYZ Graduate Assistant's personal opinions into Wikipedia. And then you contacted him for his picture and captioned it, shining even more light on someone who is completely non-notable and doesnt have any authority on the subject. The inclusion of an opinion is not decided upon whether the argument is intelligent or not, its decided on notablity and its quality as a RS.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, please re-read SlimVirgin's message to you above. She specifically did not say that your personal attack was the disagreement about the validity of the source, but that it was specifically your message on her Talk page where you were making vague allegations and innuendos about her person or character, "I've always had some questions in my mind about you...my questions were answered". Please read our WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. Crum375 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New block for Hayden5650

This user well known for disrupting behavior just came back for a blocking (more info at User talk:Hayden5650 and User_talk:125.237.116.59), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour (just to quote yesterday's "euthanasia of Jews"). Personally, I gave him some time ago an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased (just to mention Romani issues), or repeated abusing words like Gypsies, Negroes and so on. Now he is following me in my edits, opposing me, in all kind of fields he has no knowledge about, deleting my talk [50], [51]. and abusing me racially [52], [53].

What do you think about considering this case for a permanent community ban? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given my opinion here. --Kuaichik 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll exercise my right of reply after work, but after my block all I have done is revert a few of Desiphral's edits, (her edits were simply the deletion of information), while a discussion can take place to reach a consensus on the matter. --Hayden5650 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that other users are taking the same action in reverting her edits, whilst the topic is up for discussion. --Hayden5650 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am "him", not "her" (this is just part of this user's disruptive behavior). The edit war concerns a category listed for deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Population_groups_of_mixed_ancestry, that is irrelevant for the article Romani people, only used by racist users for Romani bashing. Anyway, this is diversion from the main reason of the presentation of this incident, concerning repeated disrupting behavior in many other contexts (almost all of this users's edits are looking for controversion) Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your point. But I just don't know. I think only an admin can really decide whether a ban should be issued, and if so, what kind.

Last time we had a vandalism issue, I recommended an admin I know. Should I ask him to take a look at the Romani people talk page again, also asking him to look at this page? Or what? --Kuaichik 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, I almost forgot. He's on a short wikibreak. But maybe I can ask him after he comes back if you'd like. --Kuaichik 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be appropriate, thanks. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing of CfD by Mais Oui

The soon-to-close CfD for Category:Current British MPs and its sub-categories has been the subject of partisan canvassing by User:Mais oui! at Talk:Scottish National Party#SNP-related_category_has_been_nominated_for_deletion (see this edit).

The canvassing is both blatantly partisan and is directed at a targeted audience, thereby meeting two of the criteria for unacceptable votestacking set out at at WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. It concludes with the sarcastic comment:

Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely euphemism...

Several identifiably Scottish editors voters have since joined the CfD in explicit support of Mais Oui's position, altering the balance of votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me from commenting when I'm an identifiably Scottish voter myself, but so far as I can see there is nothing wrong with him contacting active members of a WikiProject with an interest in the discusion (the Scotland Project, in this case) and with taking the view that it is up to other related projects to sort themselves out. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman, please read WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. Mais Oui did not contact the "members of a WikiProject", he posted on the talk page of a particular political party, where he presumably hoped to reach editors with a particular viewpoint. Additionally, the message concerned was not neutral, as required by WP:CANVASS. --20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came to the discusion because he noted specifiacly on my talk page, and just assumed he had gone through the members of the Scotland Project. Very well, I will leave this to more capable hands if that is not the case. I have changed my attitude to no comment. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD in limbo

This AfD appears to be stuck in limbo - Tiswas^(t) 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that due to a technical error this was never listed on the main AfD page, which would explain the lack of participation in the AfD as well as the fact that no one noticed that it needed to be closed for over a month. It appears that someone is re-listing for a new debate. Comments on the original AfD should be incorporated in the new one, and/or the people who previously commented should be notified so they can do so again. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it wasn't formatted correctly or listed in the logs. I tagged it with an afd2, and listed it. Makes sense to me to start the 5 days now, unless someone wants to make a "speedy" solution. --OnoremDil 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been speedied by User:^demon under CSD G11. WarpstarRider 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...and then un-speedied later that day. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Bijanse

Netsnipe (talk · contribs) has blocked Bijanse (talk · contribs) indefinitely, leaving the following explanation:

"You have now been blocked from editing en.wikipedia.org due to your persistently disruptive edits including inserting poorly written English into articles and repeatly breaking links. If you wish to contribute to the Wikipedia, please do so using your native language at pl.wikipedia.org."

Bijanse has one earlier block of twenty-four hours. I've left Netsnipe a message, asking him to lift the block, but I thought that I'd better mention it here too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I can see few if any useful edits, but several page blankings and insertions of word salad. Not being able to spell in English isn't bad per se, but trying to edit the English language Wikipedia in spite of it is. Support unblock once the user reacts to talk messages and indicates he wants to try to understand how we work here. Sandstein 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• General Comment If you don't have a firm grasp of another language, you shouldn't be messing around on that languages Wikipedia. For example, I have a Latin account; I registered it to make a single edit to an article (to add an image from Commons), but made damn sure to explain that I couldn't actually speak the language.[54] If you can't speak English well, keep your contributions here to a minimum. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein. "Blocks are preventative, not punitive" goes both ways-it may also mean a block purely for prevention of harm is acceptable, whether or not the person blocked was acting in bad faith. In this case, the block is preventing harmful edits, whether the editor who was blocked intends them to be so or not. If that editor were to post a clear unblock request stating that he's willing to refrain from making such edits until he learns some more, I'd support unblocking him in a second, but right now I just don't see any actually constructive contributions, regardless of intent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, none of the 3 or 4 edits on the 1st page of contribs were that bad (or even reverted for that matter). I don't think we should be blocking good faith (non-vandal) editors quite so fast...RxS 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it worying, to put it mildly, that most of those responding have such a poor grasp of our blocking policy. An indefinite block just isn't warranted here — and we don't block people for poor English (if we did, we'd have about twenty or so editors left standing); a block of forty-eight hours would have been fine. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I was expressing my general opinion about editing wikis in a language that you're not comfortable with, rather than this block in particular. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• If creating articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnieszka_W%C5%82odarczyk&oldid=134278580 this] is the norm, then I support a block. Let the user ask for unblock and apologize. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that if this editor apologizes he should be unblocked? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with pulling in an article from a foreign language Wikipedia, in untranslated form, to start working on an en.wp version of it? That was created two days ago; had they left it for weeks in untranslated form, that would be a waste of space here, but as a first draft it seems fine to me. Georgewilliamherbert 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196

His latest sockdrawers are open now the following pages are unprotected - Tommy Dreamer, Rob Zicari, Janet Romano and Xtreme Pro Wrestling. Admins required to play whack a mole please. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Toryugate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the first one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Killed it—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on previous experience, there will be plenty more where that one came from. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also has targeted Extreme Associates in the past. I have all five on my watchlist. SirFozzie 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Moneyindabankkk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong say *splat* :-) --YFB ¿ 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yougotthefling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruckus Tower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferryut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fraction Dynamic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Three more in the last 20 minutes--Agent Dude 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Aproxymately JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dynamite Flip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Has he been rangeblocked yet? Blueboy96 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very likely that all the edits are on open proxies (it's been part of his MO for the last few weeks), and he's bragged elsewhere that he has "Thousands of Proxies" to edit from. Hopefully he made a mistake somewhere and we can catch his "Home" IP (for an Abuse Report, etcetera), so the best we can hope for at the moment is to get his Open Proxies blocked (which does help the project) over at Check User. SirFozzie 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Platanogenius and Sockpuppets

• Fabre08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Paneiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of Platanogenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistant vandal who has been blocked on previous occassions has come back with personal vendetta's, racism and utilized sockpuppets in order bypass a block. Platanogenius was blocked 2 days ago and Fabre08 shows up on the same article making the same edits with unreferenced sources.[55] [56],[57] [58], [59] [60] and [61] . Please block user. YoSoyGuapo 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  checkuser initiated for IP socks as well of 70.177.181.129 , 159.53.78.144 , 24.44.231.189 and 24.44.231.189 [62] YoSoyGuapo 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Paneiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sockpuppet of blocked user Platanogenius. Warned 3 times for vandalism [63] . Then leaves a mocking statement on the talk page. Please block. "Haha!! Don't worry, my friend. I will continue to undo all your sad attempts. Using websites is a simple and lazy form of getting information. I would also suggest you to not vandalize other people work and twist it for unknown purposes."[64] Please block. YoSoyGuapo 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've started a formal sockpuppet case on the proper noticeboard in hopes of getting this resolved.--Rosicrucian 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

same old story look at some of the contributions [65] [66] [67] [68] removing of links [69] , changing of demographics [70] , and same old removal of cited material [71] 64.131.205.111 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sock

Ferocious Driver (talk · contribs) whack-a-mole. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• FortworthFan (talk · contribs) and the accounts created in the log are also socks. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked. Riana ⁂ 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • these ones still need hitting. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, got distracted. Gone. Riana ⁂ 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kingcricket342 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake Rocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Takes up where the last one left off. SirFozzie 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Jumpsteady R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pokes his head up to be whacked. I really hope the CheckUser can be run soon and hopefully wipe out the proxies he's been using. SirFozzie 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Matty Smal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked - Alison ☺ 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Golf hitter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - *sigh* - Alison ☺ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agent Dude 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) next in line. SirFozzie 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aproxymately JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) either JB's working double time, or he has a friend. SirFozzie 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Both blocked - Alison ☺ 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dynamite Flip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) next

(oops, you got him already.) SirFozzie 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel did :) - Alison ☺ 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has he been rangeblocked yet? Hopefully that'll stem the tide--and someone ought to get ahold of his ISP too. This is asinine in the extreme.Blueboy96 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know we dont have a range or even if one is available. He has a pretty consistent MO so he is easy to spot and block. Ive seen far worse puppeteers. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the remaining unblocked accounts please? Checkuser confirmed the same open proxy.

• Funtown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darktown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hunter94242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shanandoahfarms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Little Miss Ringtones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LogossogoL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fresh Grapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elementary Physical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MasterPScrooge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My Documents, Your Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - tagged and bagged. *sigh* - Alison ☺ 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User TDC

This user has taken it upon himself to provoke an edit war. In the past he wanted some information deleted, then stopped discussing thereby implicitly accepting another version. Now, three months later returns to Military Commissions Act of 2006 and without discussion redeletes the material. I asked him to first discuss and explain his incorrect edit summaries. He refuses, reverts and claims I have to disprove his POV, which BTW I did in Februari and he never responded to. Evidently this will lead to something unfortunate. Could some uninvolved administratot look at the edit history and talk page both at Military Commissions Act of 2006 and command responsibility and determine whether his actions are appropriate.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a sample of the talk page would more than demonstrate that my edits are legitimate, well reasoned and that the only response I have gotten from some of the more tenacious editors are personal attacks on me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You still stand by the edit summary that the WaPo did not mention the MCA? Clearly this user has now officially adopted the technique of edit warring instead of motivating his erroneous arguments. Have you actually read the sources before massively deleting them? As an aside, please point to where I addressed you in an uncivil manner.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to go through each point in contention and find out what can stay and what should link to the other article being mentioned; philosophically speaking it's bad practice to rehash bits of articles in other articles because that increases the chance of having material in one article not in agreement with that from another. I am also concerned by Nasico's statement that they might have misunderstood some of the sources, but that can be cleared up easily enough.

Also, throwing out the phrase "please WP:AGF" is unproductive and is itself in danger of violating AGF, as the editor making the accusation is not assuming the assumption of good faith. --Edwin Herdman 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SPA sockpuppet used to launch personal attacks

User:heatedissuepuppet an admitted sockpuppet SPA account is once again involved in trivial editwarring and personal attacks. The editor has already been blocked once. When he was unblocked he said his only purpose was to expose my COI. Even after I revealed my identity, he continues his trivial editwarring first on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) and then on Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) [72] [73]. After I added sources within a few minutes User:124.86.155.202 who appears to be heatedissuepuppet's sock/meatpuppet deleted more information from the Metropolis page. [74]. The editor then placed the following personal attack on his user page. [75].

This editor has a vendetta against me and any article I write on. Other editors who contested the user's unblock [76] noted that this editor is not using the account to protect himself from attack, but using it to attack. This is an inappropriate use of a sockpuppet and would like to ask for a block, a warning, or at the very least that the user use his main account to make the edits.

The editor will try to deflect the issue by pointing out my COI, but if you check my history you will see that I have been editing within policy to remove poorly sourced negative information about my company that he has added on numerous occassions [77] [78], and to add sources where requested. Admin Mangouice said on the COI discussion that, "I feel his behavior on the central articles (Metropolis/Crisscross) was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict". [79] Where I am mentioned in Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan), I have put my sources to uninvolved editors using RFC [80]. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...then placed the following personal attack on his user page - Noting your obvious conflict of interest in pumping up your free magazine is a "personal attack"? Nope. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Invoking an editor's COI is not a way to force poorly sourced material into articles, nor to to disallow properly sourced material, force POV, or as an excuse for personal attacks. Rather than comments from involved editors such as yourself (see your comments here [81], I came here to get the opinion of uninvolved admins on the use of a sockpuppet to launch personal attacks. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Carlton's arguments against Monolith magazine are not properly sourced (that or the editor neglected to make them available); without proper sources any such attack is in danger of becoming journalism which is something that Wikipedia does not engage in. As for the rest of it, I'll have to take my distance since I'm not that familiar with it. --Edwin Herdman 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 disruption

Cydevil keeps reverting the template at Template: History of Manchuria despite agreement from the three parties involved to rename the title to the "History of Northeast China":

The three parties - Whlee[82], Wiki pokemon and I - currently involved in this discussion (or debate, if you will) are already trying to work out a solution. I have repeatedly made my rounds on the discussion page explaining the reasons behind my edits. In fact, we have been getting rather close towards a general sense of consensus with what looks like Whlee supporting a "History of Northeast China" template (minor problems notwithstanding) [83].

The template was locked for well over half a month before I requested that it be reopened on the grounds that consensus was reached (see above). Cydevil38 made no attempts to join in on the discussion and continues to unilaterally change the status quo. He dismisses my points, saying that it "wasted his time" and was deemed (by him) to be "pointless":

I did participate in the discussion, though I didn't waste my time responding to every one of your objections that I deemed pointless. [84]

He continues to resort to non sequiturs, saying how most NPOV support his viewpoint (but provides no proof/back up):

Most of the cited sources refer to Manchuria as, well, Manchuria. And I've already made my point and it still stands - you cannot selectively apply NPOV sources for one POV while denying its application for the other. [85] (Note that Manchuria and NE China are the same thing, and the object of the entire discussion was to rename the title to "History of Northeast China")

We have given him well over a week to raise his objections/concerns, but he made no attempts to raise objections. He continues to unilaterally revert the template to his liking, at the same time, removing additional information agreed by other parties (e.g. Donghu) [86] [87] [88]. Assault11 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to inform the administrators that there was a delicate consensus on the "History of Manchuria" template at the Goguryeo article, and creation of this template, which is based on no reliable source, was made to prevent constant revert warring.[89] Assault11 being one of the few digressors continues to dispute this consensus by furthering his POV. I have raised my objections in the talk page, and I saw progressing discussion made mosstly by Assault11 and Wikipokemon as repetitive and rather pointless to the relevant issues at hand, that the common English word for Manchuria is Manchuria, not Northeast China or Dongbei. Even most of the cited sources that Wikipokemon used are entries on Manchuria. Also, what Whlee likely expressed his consensus was to the creation of another template, Template:History of Northeast China, which was created by Wikipokemon. Cydevil38 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I would like to point out that compromises were already made to Template:History of Manchuria itself to cater to Assault11's claims.[90] Cydevil38 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind about Whlee not having had a consensus. He actually did, which I didn't remember until now. I've engaged in discussions with him in his talk page, and I have addressed his concerns. Please see his talk page.[91] And mine.[92] Cydevil38 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, you participated in the discussions with only one thing in mind - bringing up irrelevant topics into the discussion [93] and making ad hominem attacks against those have different viewpoints than you [94] [95]. There was not one instance where you responded to the questions we have asked. We have been in discussion for over half a month, and you had more than a week to respond to the last few points that have been made before I requested reopening.

I have made many attempts to discuss with you on these matters. You did not reciprocate, now who's fault is that? I asked many questions regarding the historical usage of Manchuria, yet you didn't utter a single word. If you are incompetent in NE Chinese history (as you stated yourself [96]), that is not my problem. You chose to not be involved in the discussion process. If you think my points are "pointless," then that's too bad. As far as I'm concerned, you have no right to alter what has been agreed upon.

By the way, the "consensus" you were referring to was a straw poll. I have pointed out that - according to WP:DR, a survey cannot generate consensus. Also, there is no Wikipedia policy that forbids me from renaming a template after a temporary dispute settlement. Assault11 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up any possible confusion, despite sharing the first four letters of our usernames, Cydevil has nothing to do to me. Though if I were to create an evil alter ego, "Cydevil" is a good place to start looking for a name. --Cyde Weys 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:John celona

Please refer to Special:Contributions/John celona for the past 24 hours. I would appreciate someone who has not had recent involvement in the BLP-related discussions giving me a reality check on whether this user appears to be providing sincere, if extreme, feedback or if he is trolling a sensitive deletion debate. Please note that I am not asking for a block or anything; I just need to recalibrate my meter on some things. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me, I've given him a final warning for disruption and making personal attacks, if he continues, I'll block [97]. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He may be sincere, but he's adding nothing of value at all to the DRVs and for all intents and purposes I agree with Ryan, this is borderline trolling.--Isotope23 16:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On the precedent applied at [98], this user should be blocked immediately for making personal attacks, for a minimum of 9 hours. DanielT5 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, this was a bit OTT on my part. DanielT5 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a tense discussion that's going on, and blocking any participant should be very much a last resort; I just wanted to get another view on this. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I might have been minded to block in those circumstances had NYB not expressly said (as someone involved in the discussion and the main target) that he didn't think the block would be appropriate/helpful. Those DRV posts and especially this one [99] cross the line in my opinion and I would support strong action if trolling from this user continues. WjBscribe 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, more trolling at Elizabeth Smart (abductee) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee) ... if ever there were a time to block for disruption... --Iamunknown 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for trolling and attacks post my warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More cow tipping fun

Can someone please scrutinize recent edits/reverts at cow tipping? My concern is the actions of C.m.jones (talk · contribs) who has been reverting to old versions, leaving invalid warnings, etc. Thanks. Not a dog 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something's not right. YechielMan 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected [100]. Navou 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator SWATJester

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

swat jester A new administrator has sent me a message stating that he/she deleted the official company logo I uploaded to my sandbox user space called Atala T LLC was deleted due to "lack of a fair use rationale" and I clearly made clear that the Logo was fine and did not need to be deleted or tampered with. He/She also made a thret saying to "not use your user space to accuse other editors of things. You are treading dangerously close to being blocked for disruption." I felt disrespected and offened by what he said and typed him/her a message out of anger, I did not include and rude or innapropreate laugunage or dialoge. Another user Slavin has been mentoring me on wikipedia recently and has been a great deal of help with my articles so that they do not have to go though any deleting or tampering with other users or administrators. I really do find it strange that every single last article I tried to fix or create my self has been deleted and It makes me wonder at times. The first time I worked on my atricle Atala T LLC another user called Umalee has deleted it a coupple of secodns after I created it which really made me upset and angry becuase 1. I spent more than 5 hours on the article perfecting it and adding accuare facts and then this guy comes and deleted it and 2. When he responds to my talk page he says he searched on it but had the nerve to spell it wrong! It is very frusturating creating a new article from scratch and having to re enter things the right way they are supposed to be. I am verry tired of these people deleting my things and non caring that they did so and exspect you not to be angry, now I know to assume good faith but everytime my articles are the ones getting deleted! Don't you find that strange also?! Please reply on my talk page. --Muriness 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Swatjester deleted an image with no fair use rationale per WP:FAIR... the other issue would appear to be based on the fact that the article you linked has no assertion of notability per our notability guidelines for a corporation. I'm sorry you've been having a negative experience here, but I don't see anything that would require admin intervention.--Isotope23 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hey there. You (Muriness) might not be aware of this, but it's official Wikipedia policy that non-free images cannot be used on Talk pages. It doesn't matter if it's a copyrighted photograph you took yourself; if it's not got a free use rationale or appropriate license, it can't stand. --Edwin Herdman 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted by someone else under G11. It was clearly corporate spam. He's trying, unsuccessfully it appears to rewrite in user space, but if not deleted under G11 when it makes its way back to article space, it will definitely die a painful death at AFD. As for the image, I told him several times that it was in user space, as did others. He just refuses to listen. The comments on blocking were for trolling in userspace. 10 seconds on his usertalk page, and userpage history will establish that. Can we close this and move on? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

10 seconds is right. Swatjester's actions were correct, Muriness needs to take some time to understand the fair use policies (not to mention WP:CORP). I'm sticking that "resolved" box on this thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR plus, without an/3RR action.

For four days, there has been a slow boiling revert war going on. I reported it at 3RR. Nothing has happened. Since then, I've appended extra Reverts which illustrate the nature of the problem. The offending editor has asserted an WP:ILIKEIT attitude regarding his change of images, but hasn't responded significantly to either editor who has tried engaging him, instead choosing to just keep hammering away. Since 3RR isn't doing anythign about it, I'm bringing it here. I wish I didn't have to hit multiple boards, but it's not forum shopping if the first store isn't open at all. Here's the report I submitted there:

• Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 27 May 2007

• 1st revert: 23:20, 28 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:24, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:56, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:00, 29 May 2007

• 5th revert: 23:16, 30 May 2007

• 6th revert: 17:47, 31 May 2007

User refuses to use talk, relies upon OR determinations of popularity, and in his last conflict, offered to 'bust a cap' in the next person who argued with him. I didn't give a 3RR warning, but he's not a newer user, and his stubborn insistence along the WP:ILIKEIT line makes him unlikely to change. As such, a block's definitely needed. I got so frustrated, I vio'd 3RR myself, but immediately self-reverted. However, he needs to stop. ThuranX 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a 5th revert, just outside of the 24 hour mark, and without him signing in. However, signature phrases in his argument' very camp', arguments to recentism, and genreal comments regaring Two-face being a serious character indicate it's the same editor, trying to WP:GAME 3RR. I can go through a checkuser if needed, please let me know at my talk. ThuranX 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a 6th revert in this slow boil. He's been reverted and on contact with another editor, User:DrBat, and hasn't listened to that editor either. Please put a halt to this. He violated 3RR, and got nothing, and continues to revert war despite opposition. ThuranX 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin follow up on this? thank you. ThuranX 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Prices and catalogs

Some feedback is requested on Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America), whether the list should include pricing information on individual video games, or whether these are considered trivia. >Radiant< 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. I believe this should be discussed w/in a policy or a MoS scope. However, i'd say we are an encyclopedia where we gather as much information as we can, BUT pricing? Ummm, prices change every once and then and if we are going to include them we must be able to update them and i don't think we can manage that if we are going to include all prices for all products in wikipedia. Leave that job to the marketing guys working for their companies. They have their own websites (which can be reached from here by clicking on external links) where they can list and update their prices. We don't represent them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another article that falls under the price guide issue: Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360. RobJ1981 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Really annoying and bothering as an issue. But is this the right place to discuss this? What about the village pump or wikiprojects? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't ask people to discuss it here, I'm just notifying people here that we have a discussion on that talk page I mentioned. Please chime in there. >Radiant< 08:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, heck no! No prices. No, no, no, no, no, and more no. Nope. Not at all. It is crossing the very first line of Wikipedia: we are not a place where things are on sale, for sale, or promoted for sale. Listing prices is, first of all, instantly inaccurate, and, second of all, acting as handmaiden to retail. Not a chance, not a way, not at all. Geogre 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DITTTTOOOOO!!!! [WikiProject:Compare Prices]?! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR as a tool

Recent events

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: No Block)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result:self-reverted)
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: Page protected)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: 72 hours)

I should explain that I edit and usually agree with Smee in the interest of full disclosure to those who don't know. Because of that I've held off posting here to see if anyone more neutral noticed this situation. Now it's reached a point where the fact that Lsi john and Justanother are out to harass Smee by calling almost every edit which contradicts someone else's a "revert" and posting it on the WP:3RR page.

The incidents in bold are especially egregious because they include the same situation: 4. [101] and 5. [102] are one edit apart and both Justanother and Lsi john have called it a WP:BITE as well.

When one considers the fact that Spacecraft is the plural for spacecraft, just like moose is both singular and plural. Fixing mistakes is not biting either. Anynobody 06:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A full rationale has been provided to Smee. It's a run-of-the-mill reverting warring block, escalated to 72 hours because of past behaviour. Marskell 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Marskell you chose the series of edits where Smee was fixing a mistake, which was then re-added by the editors I mentioned as the point where action should be taken and then cite other cases rather than the one you issued the block for.

If the block was issued for correcting a mistake it makes no sense, if you believe the other cases are more worthy of a block then you should have explained what your concerns were but either way it was an innocent mistake on your part. I'm not looking for any repercussions against you, I'm asking for something to be done about the pattern of making complaints on WP:3RR with the only goal being a block of a particular editor.

You said the block wasn't so much for the correction as the other incidents, given that doesn't the posting of a correction seem like looking for ANY excuse to obtain a block? Anynobody 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an innocent mistake or a guilty mistake—it wasn't a mistake at all. I blocked Smee, I've provided numerous explanations on a variety of threads (which you're forcing me to do by continuing to troll on the topic), and I stand by it. Marskell 11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

correct to blank talkpage?/copyvio

an IP editor seems intent on blank this section of a talkpage as he claims it "breaks rules/ is a legal threat" - as far as I see, no rules are broken and indeed, if there is a copyvio then editors need to be aware of it. just need a quick second view. --Fredrick day 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be intent on policing that page for some reason, despite the fact it has no real demonstrable legal threat or copyvio. --Haemo 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

However, based on his edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Library_gaming_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29&diff=prev&oldid=134743236 this] page, I'd bet dollars to donuts it's SanchiTachi back from his self-imposed exile - considering he appears to have a focus on correct naming, and is reinserted very subtle edits that SanchiTachi edit warred over before. --Haemo 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

he's currently banned - checkuser maybe? --Fredrick day 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did so, since I need the experience - though it's a pretty thin case, I think I'm right. Too coincidental for my likes. --Haemo 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Still at it. The fact that they are so keen to delete a section on copyvio suggests that there might be something to it. If I revert again, I'm in breach of 3RR - however it seems important to me that the text remains there until it has been discussed and we can get to the bottom of the matter. --Fredrick day 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned? I'd think blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never really under the difference between a indef block and a ban? --Fredrick day 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An block is basically a technical measure to prevent someone from editing, whereas a ban is more like social exile. An indef block can amount to a ban if no admin is willing to unblock the user. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

possible hack attack in the future

More of of it. I hate to bring it up but someone should look here and possibly consider an expedited ISP report to Yahoo. I looked at the ISP page and it was very backlogged. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=423655&mid=423655&tof=1&frt=2

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd post this under "nothing to see here" - someone on a talkboard making a lot of big talk - so what? --Fredrick day 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good title. No its ok. At least there's a pointer to it. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I suggest you collect this stuff at User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Yahoos or some such, there is something to see there, but not much, and not at this moment requiring urgent intervention. You don't want it to get lost in the noise, I think. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive it in your personal space Jeff. Fredrick is probably correct though, it looks like typical trolling. I somehow doubt this person is even half as clever as they think they are...--Isotope23 13:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of contacting Yahoo? Threats to bring down or vandalize another website surely can't square with their terms of service. Corvus cornix 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reported using the "report abuse" feature, under the category of Harassment. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrational user on Josh Groban

Please, could an admin take a look at this mess? I don't understand why SweetTalker is behaving like this. I've tried to be civil, but it's really starting to piss me off. He/she is unbelievably rude on the talk page and in their edit histories. He/she also doesn't seem to understand that Wiki is available to edit by anyone, and they can't just revert any time someone edits what they deem "MY article." Thank you so much. Bouncehoper 23:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a nice comment on his/her talk page about ownership (or, rather, absence of) of articles, and wikified the offending paragraph a little. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope this helps. Bouncehoper 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has been reverted by x42bn6 (talk · contribs) to the previous sourced version sans the WP:POV and WP:OR.--Isotope23 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A little more help from uninvolved editors would help a little, too. The editor still tried to claim ownership. While I definitely think this is in good faith and that this editor will be useful to the article, a few more editors might help. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting when I edit conflicted with you... it is on my watchlist now.--Isotope23 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for attention: Talk:New Utopia

Resolved

 – Will take to the BLP noticeboard or place a request for comment if it becomes necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a standard request for admin intervention; in fact, admin action is probably not required. However, it is a situation that is best handled immediately, ideally by one or more experienced editors.

Background

At 01:24 (UTC) today, Vortexentity (talk · contribs) began editing the article New Utopia. His edits were (in my view, rightfully) reverted as they introduced content lacking reliable sources. At 03:14, Vortexentity began posting to the article's talk page, where he expressed the view that the article is "slanderous" and biased. Since then, we have been discussing the matter and I have made a number of changes to the article ... see diff.

This is a routine content dispute, why is it being brought to AN/I?

Er, well ... although the issue does not specifically require admin involvement, I feel that it requires involvement by one or more experienced users. Also, the article contains content that reflects (not entirely positively) on a living person; the content is sourced, but the interpretation of the sources is being disputed. There's no need to panic, but the situation does need to be handled. Since BLP is not the only concern, I'm posting it here rather than at the BLP noticeboard (please cross-post if you feel it is appropriate) So, why don't I just handle the issue myself? Well, for two reasons:

1. I think an outside perspective might be helpful.
2. It's quite late where I am and I'm quite tired ... not the best state for handling a sensitive situation. I also would like to log off so that I can get some sleep, but don't feel right simply dropping the issue for 8 hours. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd simply ask Vortexentity that we postpone the discussion until later. Since this article contains disputed content relevant to a living person and since Vortexentity seems to feel rather strongly on the issue, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Summary

So, in short, I ask that one or more editors become involved. I ask that anyone who chooses to get involved keep in mind the following:

1. The article contains information about a living person that should be handled in accordance with our policies and guidelines regarding BLPs, reliable sources, verifiability (particularly with regard to the use of self-published sources) and neutrality.
2. Vortexentity wishes to introduce content based on this source, which he has confirmed to be self-published.
3. Aside from two or three passionate postings at the start, Vortexentity has been cooperative, has refrained from editing the article after I informed him of WP:COI, and has raised legitimate concerns regarding the content of the article.

Maybe this is overkill on my part, but I think it's better to be safe. If anyone is willing to do this, please let me know so that I may retire for the night. It may be obsessiveness on my part, but I don't want to leave until I'm sure that the issue will be handled. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN redirecting

Please stop User:TTN from redirecting episodes to their lists. He's doing so without any regard to the information the articles contain, not doing any sort of merge, and he is doing it very quickly (he did reach up to 6 redirects in a single minute). The work of many editors are being hidden away in edit histories by his recklessness in enforcing WP:EPISODE. —Zachary ^talk 06:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with him directly? I think that should be the first step (though I'd encourage you not to use loaded terms like "recklessness"). My personal opinion is that redirecting such pages is often justified. However, I am doubtful that one can make the determination that 4 or 5 episode articles are not "able to contain more information than a plot summary and trivial notes" in the span of one or two minutes (it should take at least 5-15 minutes to look for sources for the articles). I think his interpretation of WP:EPISODE, that "Episode articles must be able to contain more information than a plot summary and trivial notes", is spot-on, but his application of the guideline may not be entirely appropriate (unless, of course, he had previoiusly attained support for his actions on one or more talk pages, or he had checked all the pages beforehand). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This appears to have spawned from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes. A spot-check of a half-dozen of the articles in question shows most of the pre-redirect articles as being under 2500 bytes in size and often falling far short of the criteria specified in WP:EPISODE. Perhaps I am missing the source of outrage here, because any editor could make substantive additions to any of the articles and remove the redirect after it meets the criteria, right? --Kralizec! (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

After viewing that discussion, it seems my second qualification ... "he had checked all the pages beforehand" ... applies. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano_II ignoring consensus

By unilaterally redirecting Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (which recently survived afd as a keep). Doc_Glasgow has done the same thing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Con doesn't trump V, and I note the only source is your personal website. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support Giano's bold action. Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet as it stood was not remotely reliably sourced and there was simply nothing to support a standalone article there. An AFD closed Keep is not the be all end all that signifies an article should stay in a static state forever. All of these Arbuthnot articles that don't contain a distinct, sourced claim of notability per WP:BIO should be redirected. They can always be restored as standalone articles if verifiable sources are found. Of course this is all a content issue and I don't see any case for admin action against Giano for being bold.--Isotope23 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirection and merger can be implemented as editorial decisions outside the deletion process. Issues can be discussed on the talk of the articles in question. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Despite repeated requests on this page to desist from WP:COI edits to articles on members of his own family (see e.g. discussion above at #Vendetta), Kittybrewster has done it again, shortly after the expiry of a previous 48-hour block or the same problem. This is now clearly a form of disruptive editing, so I have imposed a fresh block, this time for 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to say that I am troubled by this block. I share the extreme concerns that have been expressed by many editors about the sourcing and reliability of some of the Arbuthnot articles and by Kittybrewster's handling of the controversies that have arisen surrounding them. However, his only substantive edit today was to correct a questioned date of birth while citing the Dictionary of National Biography, and I can't see that as warranting a block. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • He didn't simply correct a date, he removed the "notability" tag. IrishGuy ^talk 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I did miss that. Newyorkbrad 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The ongoing pattern of baiting and bullying that Kittybrewster has been subjected to is sad to see. Catchpole 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • The ongoing pattern is more of a two way street, if anything. SirFozzie 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • While the edit in question wasn't a particularly good one (removing notability tag and then adding an inexplicable "reference" in the form of <ref>DNB</ref>... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), I think a 7 day block for that is a bit draconian. Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) has not made particularly helpful edits to these articles, but I just don't see this as blockable for that amount of time.--Isotope23 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There was a citation of the Dictionary of National Biography already present at the bottom of the article. "DNB" is a common abbreviation for that. Uncle G 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, I completely missed that it was supposed to be an abbreviation for that. Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I like to see references a bit clearer. The way it was done it was not clear.--Isotope23 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Brad; this particular action did not warrant a week's block. I do understand that it's cumulative, and I do understand the frustration with this editor's inability to understand why he cannot edit articles about himself and his family. Blocks, however, are intended to stop disruption; I frankly don't think that Kittybrewster's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant a one week block at this point, given how it is limited to one narrowly defined set of articles. Granted, it's pretty hard to follow the conversations on KB's talk page, since he keeps blanking it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I asked BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) to pop back over here to discuss the block. IMO, it should be refactored to something more along the lines of 24 hours if a block is going to be left on the account.--Isotope23 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23, for the note that this discussion was continuing. I will explain my reasons, but if there is a consensus for refactoring or lifting the block, that's fine by me: I won't object to any change which has consensus here.

My reasoning was that this COI editing is not something new, and that it has continued for a long time: KB refuses to acknowledge the existence of a COI, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly criticised both here at WP:ANI and on countless talk pages and AfDs. The product of all this COI editing has been a huge swathe of articles which are primarily dependant on sources owned by Kittybrewster himself (his website and a book to which he owns copyright), and efforts to delete or merge them in accordance with WP:N, WP:RS etc are hotly contested by Kittybrewster.

Debates over these articles have caused tempters to be raised on both sides, and Kittybewster's continued COI edits are only stoking the flames of a tense situation. After a previous block (which he did not contest), KB returned and set about COI editing straight away; that seems like to me to be clear indication that far from trying to help a calm resolution of the situation, he is happy to stoke the tensions. At this point, I think it's time to make it clear that such determined and persistent COI editing is unacceptable, so a further block was justified ... and 7 days seeems like the next logical increment after the previous 48-hour block.

AS above, if there is consensus here to lift or refactor the block, that's fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I actually did quite a bit of tidying this afternoon (for that is what it was) I made 4 baronets all non-notable with virtually zero information other than their wifes' and childrens' names and some trivial information not demonstrating notability (one was a JP, another a Master of Fox Hounds - all very commendable/enjoyable but hardly distinguished) into a redirect, and made the page known as Arbuthnot in to a redirect to Category: Arbuthnot family which is plain common sense.

This is the way forward with the Arbuthnot problem, tidy and sort. I have also discovered that some pages lead to the wider and more extended Arbuthnot family, some of these are not by the same author but that is neither here nor there as (despite his beliefs to the contrary) this problem is not about Kittybrewster and his friends personally but about the notability and often referencing of the Arbuthnot pages. Many of which he has not been the sole editor. We just need to apply some common sense and deal with this matter efficiently in a detached fashion - this is about the worth and standing of the encyclopedia nothing else. So far during this unseemly debacle I have been seen people being accused of supporting terrorist organizations, republicanism, "treating the British ascendency with disdain" and "opposing personal and political reasons", and of course David Lauder's latest accusation yesterday of a "vendetta". This is ludicrous and has to stop.

When by chance trawling Wikipedia for a stub to improve (as I often do) I initially came across the Arbuthnot pages I desperately tried to help Kittybrewster, but the more I researched and sourced the more errors I can across - I advised I tried to help, (God knows where I found the patience) on wiki and off - eventually I ran out of patience and told him why [103]. Normally when I am a little abrupt with people I think afterwards - that was a little harsh. In this case I stand by every word. These people are not notable, the titles they hold may well be, so the title can have a page. Notable holders of that title can have a page. Non-notable holders of baronetcies do not need a page - especially when there is nothing to write about. At the end f the day the project is what is important, individual editors may have their problems (which of us do not?) but Wikipedia is not therapy. Regarding Kittybrewster's latest block - I could not care less about it. It makes no difference to the encyclopdia how long it lasts. Giano 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. This is a content dispute, with a user with a clear conflict of interests. The accusations are ridiculous and wild. I wrote an arbuthnot article, and the only one I recall redirecting I did so after no substantive arguments were offered against redirection on the talk page discussion. As for ignoring consensus on an AfD - check the afd on the article I redirected, there was 'no consensus'. Anyone who knows the fraught history between myself and Giano knows that we are the least likely two wikipedians to be in a conspiracy together. Yet, here we agree - could we possibly be right?--Doc^g 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I add my bungle of twigs to this bonfire?

• Redirecting non-notable Arbuthnots to an overarching article that is notable makes perfect sense.
• There is no vendetta, hounding, bullying or baiting of Kittybrewster, at least in so far as people like Giano are making a good-faith effort to deal with the many non-notable Arbuthnot articles (although there has been some of that in Kittybrewster's other interaction with other Wikipedians).
• In my opinion, Kittybrewster's most recent edit did not deserve a 7 day block - he added a reference to the DNB! If someone disputes his assertion (by deleting the "notability" tag) that the article is notable, take it to AFD. I would unblock immediately. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please just leave him where he is [104] unable to edit! Giano 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: the title of this section, I don't think Giano was ignoring consensus at all he was following it as the majority of people seem in favour of not having articles about every Baronet just because they're a Baronet. I don't think it was necessary to block Kittybrewster for adding the DNB reference-if someone has a DNB article they are notable enough for an article here- I think a block would only be necessary if he started creating more family tree articles only sourced to that book. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav, if KB thought that there was was extra information which could be added to the article, he could and should have followed the advice at WP:COI, and simply added a note to the talk page requesting that the information be added. And the most important point is that he should not' have unilaterally removed the {{notability}} tag from an article where there was a COI; in this case, I think that notability probably has been established, but that decision should not be made by an editor with a COI.

However, when checking the validity of the reference, I found that most of the article was a blatant copyvio of the subject's DNB entry at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/613 -- see Talk:Thomas Arbuthnot#Copyright_violation_from_DNB. The offending material was added by User:Frendraught, not by Kittybrewster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Giano acted properly. The block on Kittybrewster may be excessive but he doesn't appear to accept that there's any problem with his editing despite many complaints in different venues. Does anyone have a cluestick? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with Kitybrewster is that he does not accept anything he is told by anyone. He fails to appreciate that this is intended to be a serious project. He seems to have limited interests in the project other than attempting to turn it a record of his own family history. I have been saying now for some weeks that a panel of three of four highly reputable admins need be set up to review all his pages with delegated powers to delete or amend without further consultation or debate. They could check all sources and claims and email known editors who are experts in certain fields to verify claims - this would eliminate the need for the confrontational and often inaccurate claims and arguments taking place over each AFD. I would go as far as to suggest that Mackensen (who has a good working knowledge of the peerage and the subject, and a respected Arbcom member, be appointed chairman. I will go further and suggest that Kittybrewster is banned from editing all Arbuthbot and related pages until the panel has finished its work, after that any edits he makes thereafter to the pages have to be through an independent intermediary who screens for POV and conflict of interest. Giano 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in finding your committee! But the second part (a community sanction preventing Kittybrewster from editing Arbuthnot articles directly) sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Presuambly we can impose such a sanction without bothering ArbCom? Power to the people, and all that. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock Kittybrewster as I think it is pretty clearly consensus that 1 week was excessive. At this point if someone wants to pursue a community solution feel free to do so.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that I would leave it to a consensus to decide whether to refactor or lift the block, and I don't see such a consensus. But it's done, and I'm not going to wheelwar.

However, I woukd encourage anyone who doubted the merits of the block to take a look the discussion on KB's talk page: as Giano said earlier today "The problem with Kitybrewster is that he does not accept anything he is told by anyone".

Now that the block is lifted, I expect that Kittybrewster will soon be back editing Arbuthnot articles again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I for one would support a week's block should KittyBrewster once again start the Arbuthnot nonsense. He's been told about COI and V and RS many, many times. I'm not going to wheel war, but I fail to see a clear consensus for unblock, and consider the unblocking precipitate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We serve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to serve us. Our personal lives and heritage are personal, and writing up an article on one's ancestors because they're you're family is a violation of WP:VANITY. It is absolutely no different from writing up an article about your girlfriend because "shes so hot" or your boyfriend because "he's awsum." In other words, the fundamental intellectual mistake is in trying to use Wikipedia's servers and services to glorify and amplify oneself. I wrote an Arbuthnot, too, and kittybrewster had no interest in it until someone decided to change all the spellings to "British" (against MoS, folks), and then the same mentality came in: this must serve my glory. I support a prohibition against editing Arbuthnot family articles, but I fear that this particular user will simply pick up his mother's family next. He has had the rules against genealogy explained to him by a dozen people. He has been treated quite kindly in general. He has had the principles stated, restated, and restated again. Consensus has been demonstrated, and yet he believes this is worth fighting for. If he has a use for us other than attesting his family lore, that's good, but I would recommend that he be prohibited from writing articles on Scottish gentry. I know that's broad, but I'm getting quite convinced that the users understands the policies and simply plans to flaunt them. Geogre 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been blown out of all proportion. I consider the Arbuthnot case rather trivial compared to huge swaths of Wikipedia that lack any expert attention. That said, I feel obliged to support everything that Geogre says above about notability, vanity, and kittybrewster. They say in the Republic of Georgia (tongue in cheek of course) that every second Georgian is a prince. Should we have articles about two million people on that account? If a person was lucky enough to be born into a noble family, that does not make him notable and worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, threats, removal of useful resources, misunderstanding of WP policy by User:Jrod2

I previously had a conflict with this user at Loudness war over two references to trade publications which User:Jrod2 felt were "spam." This conflict was eventually resolved, though not before Jrod2 had posted warrantless vandalism and spam warning tags on disagreeing users' talk pages [105] [106] [107], reported myself and another user to Checkuser [108] [109], and accused me of not waiting for consensus to be reached when in fact several other users had already agreed with me. In the end, however, I was satisfied with the outcome at Loudness War.

However, I noticed that at another pro audio page, Audio mastering, user Jrod2 had started deleting perfectly acceptable references there as well [110]. After reading the talk page, I decided to constructively edit and re-add the link [111], which was then reverted by Jrod2. Later, the reference he removed was re-added without complaint. Then there was an argument in the talk page about the linking of a Bob Katz book (Bob Katz has written books on the topic of audio mastering) at Amazon [112]. There was editing conflicts between Jrod2 and User:Rert2 and User:VinylJoe. I then pointed out that ISBN links are the preferred way of linking to book resources on Wikipedia, and added that information to the aforementioned reference [113]. Jrod2 then deleted the reference that linked to Amazon instead of changing it to be in ISBN format. At this point Jrod2 insisted that he was not accepting Bob Katz or Nika Aldrich (the two contested sources) as reliable sources, and threatened to " to clean up any Cats or Aldrich and I am going to demand other alternatives" on all Wikipedia audio pages, and additionally threatened "game over" if he "smelled anything rotten." [114]. I then asked him to stop on his talk page [115]. I also posted his comment on the pro audio WikiProject page to see what other pro audio Wikipedians felt about Bob Katz and Nika Aldrich [116]. This was all compounded by the fact that one of the editors who disagreed with him turned out to be a sock puppeteer after Jrod2 reported him to WP:ANI [117]. Jrod2 then threatened me by posting this on my talk page:

Illuminatedwax here is the head of Rert2 (See: [118]) A dismembered head without a body, is never able to make a point. I hope I made mine crystal clear. Have a nice editing day! [119]

I feel that this is insinuating a threat.

Basically, what I'm looking for is:

• User:Jrod2's behavior reviewed, and have an admin set him (and possibly me) straight on how Wikipedia works
• Avoiding any further nasty disputes on Wikipedia pro audio pages regarding what Jrod2 might consider "spam" links. Going through and deleting all Bob Katz and Nika Aldrich references on Wikipedia will undoubtedly be disruptive.
• Making sure that I am not personally attacked, re: Jrod2's insinuation that my head will roll

Illuminatedwax 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterargument

I am surprised but glad that you have taken this to the Incidents Board. First of all, I'd like to apologize to the members of this board for wasting their valuable time on such frivolous accusations. But, maybe this is a good thing. I assume Illuminatedwax is a very young person, passionate about WP as most of us. That said he has taken everything out of context. But let me clarify to this board that I never said to this editor that his head "will roll". What I said was in response to a conversation at his talk page, about me with a confirmed sock puppeteer Rert2 who engaged in personal attacks against me very recently. So, this is what I said, (See: [120]) It meant simply that personal attacks and sockpuppetry have no place at WP and if someone engages in that, this is what happens (Their head will be dismembered or blocked). This was not a personal attack and hope the Board recognizes that.

Second, Nika Aldrich and Bob Katz have been used as reference for several audio pages including external links on pages that seem ambiguous to audio itself. Nevertheless, their names continue to be mentioned (see this example on an ambiguous term [121]). Notice that the anon editor is clearly biased. Such inclusions on so many articles citing the same names (Bob Katz and Nika Aldrich) raises, in my view, the possibility that these engineers are being promoted at WP to establish further notability or even for financial gain. Although I am not saying that they are guilty as charged, the point is, there are much better options that won't represent a case of "links normally to be avoided". If I have deleted any of such external links, is because I am convinced that they did not expand beyond what the article itself contained and in effect the links direct users to a site heavily commercial, or to a site where business services are sold by the author himself. Is this useful to WP? There is a fine line between a link that does add to the subject at hand and one that merely serves as promotional or advertising vehicle. As for the credentials of those 2 engineers, no one disputes that they are professionals, what is in question is the wisdom to allow such engineer names to be included on the merit that they both wrote a book. There has been an untold number of vandalism at the Audio mastering page. If you see the page history from April to December 2006, you would see the ridiculous competition among all these engineers to spam and exploit Wikipedia for personal gain. The evidence indicates that they were personally involved on these vandal attacks and disputes. It all ended in March 2007, when I stepped in. So, Are we supposed to believe that they are all gone? If a high class, state of the art recording facility like FrankFordWayne, in which apparently "someone" placed a link to their site, can do that (See: [122]) then, why is it so difficult to believe that these individuals may have targeted WP to increase their prestige or for just pure financial gain? And still, I am not accusing anyone. However, I will analyze and study each of these articles along with their external links, to determine if by any chance it's not appropriate and in effect it's nothing but an attempt to spam WP. Everything I do is within WP guidelines. I hope the board realizes too that I am not conducting "audits" on every subject at WP. There are plenty of external links that don't meet the criteria for inclusion and in fact are a clever advertisement vehicles, which I won't bother to explore. But two wrongs should not make one right. Maybe is time for Illuminatedwax to start trusting elder editors and their instinct to recognize and question when something does not sit well on a given article. Finally, it's not disrupting to delete suspicious links and bring all members in for a discussion as to why those links deserve to be included. If someone reverts my requests without any other reason than stubbornness, you bet I am going to tag them accordingly on their own talk page so as to call upon their civility and to remind them to act in good faith. Thanks for your attention. Jrod2 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that commercial spam is a curse particularly on certain articles and in certain subjects. However, I'm concerned that you are being unnecessarily abrasive here. In particular, good faith edits are NEVER vandalism, and a link added in good faith doesn't deserve a spam warning even if you think it's too commercial or not useful. In addition, links used as references shouldn't be removed unless either the info it supports is removed or a better reference can be found. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If in spite of all the evidence, you think that what I have done for WP is inappropriate, then block me now, all I ask is that you have taken sometime to assess the situation first. One more point, Sir and with all due respect to you, "Good faith" is what "good faith" does, so unless you are familiar with a particular case or a situation, everything you said above is mere policy. Have a nice evening Jrod2 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a reason to believe that user Jrod2 is falsly claiming to be a graduate student of Computer Science. Many technical statements made by this user are grosely inacurate from the technical and scientific point of view which makes me think that the claim of greaduate studies is false. Furthermore in order to be graduate student one must have a BS degree and I doubt that as well because of lack of depth and knowledge on technical subjects. This case is somehow reminiscent of Essjey except Essjay's edits were constructive and supportive and Jrod2 edits such as removal of supportive references are hindering article development. Here is the most recent example of technically incompetent edit [123] where he removed technically supported statement in respect to analog mastering technology. This user used a pseudo name of mastering engineer Edward Vinatea to promote his business. Using another person's name is in itself a viaolation of wikipedia policy. Upon closer examination it seems that this user is removing all links that may somehow be competitive to Edward Vinatea mastering studio and potentially take business away from his studio. Here is the latest example of this activity [124] . All this is being done under pretext of spam removal while if fact this looks to me like a subversive vandalism. --VinylJoe 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm a graduate student in another discipline, and some of my fellow students I am genuinely curious how they got there :) Orderinchaos 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

VinylJoe, I am not the only person that you didn't agree with (See: [125]) I actually gave you ideas to get the inclusions you so desired (See: [126] and [127]) But, all you wanted was to change important definitions and the direction of the page itself without any consensus. All you've done is to diminish me as an editor by saying "I don't understand" or "I am not qualified" (See: [128]) then you engaged in vicious personal attacks against me to make me lose credibility (See: [129] [130]) That's grounds for blockage, but I let it fly. I warned you before to stop at the article talk page and at your talk page (See:[131] and [132]) You and confirmed sock puppeteer Rert2 had teamed up to harass me so as to prevail on the discussions. Well, Rert2 is blocked now, but you seem to believe that this board is going to pay heed to your new accusations. Can someone please check this user and see that he is a single purpose account who has been disrupting Audio mastering page from day 1? Thank you. Jrod2 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is normal that if someone is claiming advanced degree credentials, someone else may want to verify that claim. So I'm only asking you to verify your advanced degree program. I think one should be proud to be a scholar working with a university. If that is the case, and you are in fact in an advanced degree program I will appologize profusely, and retract all my comments. Sorry for my lack of good faith in your credentials, but I would love nothing more then to find a credible editor/scholar who can take care of audio articles as they are in rather bad shape. Please proof me wrong or stop interfering and remove the advanced degree box from your user page. --VinylJoe 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing on IRC for a TfD reported

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 26#Template:FreeContentMeta. A report has been made that someone was canvassing for one side in this TfD. I did not see this but I am passing along the claim here for further attention and investigation. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been contacted on my talk page here about a derivitive of this template. I'll keep an eye on its TfD and make sure it closes on time. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm the claim of canvassing. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappointingly it appears that an administrator was involved. [133], that Matthew's logs are authentic is confirmed here. [134] --MichaelLinnear 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What's done in these cases (XfD) when canvassing is confirmed? --A. B. ^(talk) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The user is politely requested to stop spamming on Wikipedia. Deletion debates are generally overturned only in the case of demonstrable sockpuppetry, which isn't alleged here. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd to equate a discussion in IRC about the templates with canvassing. Yes, the template has come up in IRC. But unless you're going to ban talking about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia IRC channels, some matters are going to come up in IRC and people are going to learn about them and go weigh in. This is materially different from canvassing - individual people were not contacted and encouraged to vote, nobody spammed talk pages. I, when the template was first nominated, brought the matter up in IRC. It's preposterous to suggest that this was in any way out of line. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to look at the discussion on the FreeContentMeta template and suggest that what that discussion looks like is a canvassing of votes. Truth be told, this is one of the best deletion discussions I've seen - everybody is presenting arguments, they're being discussed well, and we're getting a good sense of the diversity of the community's opinion. The process is working as intended. People who dislike the results they're seeing should probably stop grasping at straws to try to overturn it. It's looking remarkably like asking the other parent. Phil Sandifer 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I will also note that it's very distressing that logs are being leaked from the admin channel. The channel is used frequently for sensitive discussions of biographies of living people, and the idea that people are leaking logs for petty political gain is deeply troubling. Phil Sandifer 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that. Why, just the other day a very sensitive issue was dealt with smoothly via IRC. Sean William @ 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Wikipedians talk to one another. This is absolutely unacceptable and must stop immediately. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume this is sarcasm? —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And a third note - WP:CANVAS repeatedly notes that small scale consults with other editors are acceptable and that the arbcom has found this to be common practice. Does anyone actually have evidence of widespread attempts to contact users and encourage them to vote? Phil Sandifer 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG ROUGE CONVERSER. Phil Sandifer 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to consider the issue in terms of spam, a concept a bit more in-line with IRC. If the conduct of the posters involved is perceived as spam, then the admins should go through the regular IRC process to review that, which in my experience as an IRC admin is easily enough dealt with. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear from recent RfAs that canvassing isn't a major threat to balance (the canvassed often react negatively to it); the fact that we're having this discussion indicates to me that the editors are fully able to counter any bias from the TfD. I also think it's not appropriate that message logs for Admins be shared publicly, and so will not read them. --Edwin Herdman 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "discussing" these debates on IRC, if you will also document them on Wikipedia. I'm sure that everyone deserves to hear about why they should vote a particular way. I mean, Wikipedians talk to each other, and that's great, right? So why hide your light under a bushel? Let's put this wonderful joy and community feeling out in the open, where it can be examined, read, considered, and assessed. Surely, since it's all good and for the benefit of the project, no one would have any objections. After all, IRC is the #1 best good thing ever, and the fact that we can get rid of bad people on it makes it even more super fun good, and we can just trust the people there at the time, taking part, to tell us if they were being prejudicial or unfair, because there has never been a case of misuse of the medium. Geogre 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I, at least, said nothing in IRC I haven't said on the deletion debate itself. Phil Sandifer 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what could have been the point of saying it on IRC?Proabivouac 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I shall henceforth cease to say anything in IRC that I've already mentioned or might eventually mention on the Wiki. Phil Sandifer 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of saying it on IRC is to predispose tfd commenters in favor of keeping the template ("ZOMG I came up with the perfect solution to this problem and some evil vandal immediately brought it to tfd!1!"). The tfd is invisible from articlespace - the deletion debate for {{HarryPotterWiki}} was speedy closed, the tfd template was removed from {{Wookieepedia box}}, and the tfd template on {{FreeContentMeta}} has always been noincluded - and largely invisible from the watchlist as well, as most instances were quietly snuck into articles by redirecting pre-existing link templates to them. For a deletion discussion that can only reasonably be found by irc denizens canvassed by the template's creator and the stray diehard tfd regular, there is remarkably little support for keeping it. —Cryptic 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The TfD notice doesn't appear in the article space because FreeContentMeta isn't transcluded anywhere - it's a meta-template used to create the sub-templates. Beyond that, your comment seems to assume a breathtakingly malicious amount of bad faith that simply doesn't exist, and so I'm not sure how to productively respond to it. Phil Sandifer 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if George's replying to me or not; if so: We can depend on Wikipedia's process to make the "light under the bushel" shine forth - secret conspiratorial plotting outside Wikipedia will not have an affect on Wikipedia if those issues are not brought up. If they are, they're subject to the same process of validation every other claim undergoes. I wouldn't quite call this obviously appropriate behavior, but the argument comes close to endorsing the monitoring of all private conversations on IRC and seems to indicate a lack of faith in the process here. I can rally as many people as I like in hopes of swaying the process, but if the arguments are not valid it will not matter. --Edwin Herdman 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, the most striking thing about your comment is that it doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue at hand, save having another go at IRC. On the other hand, it's good to know that you'd never consider improperly discussing a vote on IRC. Except that it wasn't improper. Because we allow people to confer off-wiki and we don't beat them with sticks over their choice of medium. Since deletion debates are decided by consensus, actual numbers are irrelevant anyway and obvious vote-stacking will be dealt with. Do you have an objection to the state of the debate in question? Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, I want to congratulate you on having a crack research staff capable of going so far back into the mists of time as to find the Njyodler case, when I was already disgusted with IRC's uselessness. For the record, I hereby give permission for anything I said on IRC at the time to be quoted in full on Wikipedia. I was on the main Wikipedia channel, as I have never gone to the admins channel (the one that's nice and private for admins only...except, of course, for people that "we" like who aren't admins), and I have treated it as being on-wiki.

The problem with "canvassing" is at hand, not the problem of IRC and blocking (which is the most common form of this mess). It is my feeling that IRC is absolutely lousy as a place for argument of any sort. The line lengths, the constant interruptions, the fact that only a few people are paying attention at one time, and the fact that one has to repeat the bits "I missed" over and over again mean that IRC simply can't support reasoned debate or argument. Therefore, what it can do is support agreement. If you are there and urging the deletion of an article, I might disagree, but I will be a fool to try to argue it. Everyone else in disagreement will probably feel the same way, too. "No point in trying to argue here, because it's just too frustrating," they'll say, and this is aside from the clubbishness of the medium. With some people more than others, there is a club/niche/cluster of like minds that do not tolerate, much less welcome, dissent. Even if those are not involved, dissent is difficult on IRC and argument all but impossible.

Therefore, "let's go save this" or "let's go kill this" is going to be pretty heavy on IRC. On Wikipedia there is argument, discussion. On the mailing lists, there is discussion and argument. Even on the -Project pages there can be argument. Therefore, canvassing on IRC is potentially more abusive by a long shot than on Wikipedia, because the medium really doesn't support two sided discussions very well.

The point to this is that either we were wrong when we said that talk page spamming is evil or you are wrong in saying that promoting a vote one way or another on IRC is not wrong and we are all (as admins) wrong in not stopping WikiProject-Korean-Animation-Soundtracks-of-Dance-Dance-Revolution from listing vote debates for mass action. At the very least, we're horribly inconsistent, and it is flatly disingenuous to suggest that IRC lobbying efforts are no big deal. They may be, in the end, licit, but they are a big deal. Geogre 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're worried about logs of sensitive discussions on IRC leaking to the general public, it seems like the obvious solution would be to not talk about sensitive matters on IRC. Use something more secure, like e-mail or an IM. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand - I agree with Mackensen here, this wouldn't even remotely be the worst TfD I've closed. Whether or not there's canvassing, rioting, or the orbital escape of the moon, policy will still rule when it comes time to close the nomination. This section doesn't even seem to be about the TfD anymore, it's spiraling into this familiar discussion: IRC: helpful wiki-tool or instrument of mass murder? (not to make light of the situation or anything :) ). It's no big deal. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, you really need to be more careful about what you say. The phrase "it's no big deal" belongs to RfA; pick something else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about: "It'll be on DRV anyway?" RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I readily admit that I was drawn to this thread not by any concern for the outcome of the TfD, but by the confluence of the terms "IRC" and "canvassing." Rightly or wrongly, IRC has acquired a bad reputation among many of the natives because of its association with controversial decisions (especially related to blocks). The trouble is that we have an allegation of canvassing - which has always had a poor reputation - the merits of which cannot be evaluated because the evidence is not available on the wiki. What we have instead is some saying, trust us, there was canvassing, with others saying, trust us, it was no big deal. This opacity, while perhaps quite justifiable in some contexts (though if something is that sensitive, e-mail seems more appropriate, as IRC is not private but arcane) is bad for the community.Proabivouac 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between talking about a template on IRC and being blatant that you want somebody to go there and add a keep. I think it's further evidenced that canvassing is going as as several users seemingly believe they are keeping an external link, rather than discussing a box. Matthew 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, let's get rid of the prohibition on "talk page spamming." If the same thing is going to happen "anyway," then let people do it on talk pages. After all, at least on talk pages, everyone can see the canvassing. Utgard Loki 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to any form in which people are asked to cast a particular vote. There is little wrong with inviting people into a discussion and asking them to make up their own mind. If what is stated is true, and i cannot be sure, then I object to that, and to nothing else. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And I still think that this could all have been avoided if Matthew hadn't been so annoyingly uncommunicative and if Phil had used this method at any time over the past week of edit warring instead of redirecting the old textual templates. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple new single purpose accounts editing Mandrake Press

There is one single-purpose IP and two new accounts (one clearly the single-purpose IP) disruptively editing Mandrake Press.

• 81.157.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• IP-81-157-73-83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can this be looked into? IPSOS (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the user in question! I was being demeaned because I was anon. I created the account to make the point. I don't want the account I won't use the account and as far as I am concerned the account is closed.--81.157.73.83 11:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, user:IP-81-157-73-83 is obviously against WP:USERNAME anyway. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot

User:BetacommandBot is running a bot that is making 25-26 edits per minute. This is not correct procedure and this user needs to slow down, as this type of mechanized "tearing through" pages without careful consideration (which we should always exercise as editors here) is simply not possible with this kind of rapidity of editing. It is simply unreasonable. Badagnani 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... sorry, but you do know that this is a bot, right? -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a big job that needs to be done, and the bot is doing a good job. Is there any edit you have issue with? I am pretty sure the bot is approved for those tasks. ^(H) 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And did you ask Betacommand himself about this before coming to ANI? Riana ⁂ 03:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, move along? Badagnani's objections just don't make any sense. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make sense? Bot edits should be reviewable by editors. Even now it is going at 18 e/min, tagging non-free images that do not have a valid fair use rationale, a non-urgent task, not requiring more than 6 edits a minute. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just saw 23 edits in one minute from this bot. I'm concerned by the tone the author has taken with folks who have expressed concern, notably an impatience that gives me the impression that BC may not take these requests seriously. This is an important task, but the bot does appear to be editing faster than the community agreed throttle for non-zomg! work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up fair use abuse is urgent work. It is necessary. For far too long people have got away with thinking this is FairUsePedia, not a free encyclopedia. Well, now it's time for cleanup. Moreschi ^Talk 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Betacommand is obviously one of the best bot-makers here. But the problem is the great speed his bot is moving. Even for urgent tasks, the bot-speed shouldn't be more than 15 e/min as per Wikipedia:Bot policy. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am taking them seriously but Im following the example set by cydebot regarding Fair use and I have to work though over 320,000 images. if this is to ever get done it needs to get done quickly. the images are currently in violation of our copyright policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot has been blocked in the past for the same reasons as above. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

following that block it was unblocked and given the go-ahead for ~50 edits a minute. And the bot policy was reviewed and amended to see fit for such actions. As this is a Foundation copyright issue speed is of the essence. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how keeping Wikipedia in line with copyright laws is anything but urgent. ^(H) 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And even if it was still a problem, well, then there should be BetacommandBot2, BetacommandBot3, and BetacommandBot4 (and more?), all doing the exact same thing. That way one bot at 25 edits a minute could be replaced by 4 doing 15 a minute. Net gain. --Ali'i 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly. There's no advantage to splitting the work across multiple bot accounts (it would still cause the same server load), but there is a big disadvantage: the edits would be coming from multiple usernames, thus making them much harder to track, and especially, to view in chronological order. --Cyde Weys 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be defeating the purpose of the policy at hand. One bot operator cannot run the same bot over a different username. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Several operators could get approval to run the same bot if the job was big enough, and this is a very big job. Interesting idea. ^(H) 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to replace one fast bot with 3 or 4 slower ones? That makes no sense at all. Prodego ^talk 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of more fast ones, the job needs to get done. ^(H) 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If bots were added that is what I would think as well, though 1 should be able to handle it. However, read Ali'i's comment above. Prodego ^talk 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I could easily triple or quadruple or more its edit rate with little problem on my end But i want to be nice to our servers and admins. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What maxlag setting does the bot have? See WP:BONB#Maxlag parameter; a developer has suggested that if bots don't edit when the lag goes over 5 seconds, it will be easier on the servers. --ais523 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

dont worry I am being careful with the servers and am only going at the current rate. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the bot producing errors or problems other than the high speed rate? --Shirahadasha 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant, if the bot policy was to be so strictly adhered to as it would force BetacommandBot to throttle back to 15 edits a minute, just multiply the bots at the new forced slower rate. 4 bots at 15 edits a minute is 60 edits, replacing 1 bot at 25 edits a minute (Net gain of 35 edits a minute). It is a way to take a policy wonk and give 'em an old boot in the ass while better helping Wikipedia (and Wikimedia). --Ali'i 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you all please stop finding shit to complain about and go fix an article or something? Honestly, we can't make urgent improvements around here without someone dragging us out onto the street and shooting us in the knees. Live and learn, people. This isn't a place to whine about others' hard work. -Pilotguy hold short 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot does have one problem that I have noticed. If a user redirects their talk page and Betacommandbot attempts to leave a warning on that talk page, the bot will overwrite the target page. [135] I dropped a note about this on Betacommand's talk page yesterday. Fortunately, this should be a rare occurrence and hopefully it's an easy fix. --GentlemanGhost 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Trojani

Resolved

 – ...at least for now... Phaedriel - 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of Trojani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly blocked for edit-warring and block evastion, most lately evading through 84.217.34.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in a style that descends more and more into pure vandalism and trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the 1 week block imposed on him by Sam Blacketer on May 25, seeing he had also been trolling and evading it with 84.217.199.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday. I've also temporarily blocked both IP addresses and added Illyrians to my watchlist in case he tries to game the system again. Phaedriel - 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I thought I'd already done that block extension myself, even before the evasion through the latest IP. Seems it didn't stick somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - I had hoped he might learn something from the first week-long block but he evidently learnt nothing. At the moment he is going the right way to establish that he has no constructive input to make to writing an encylopaedia. Sam Blacketer 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another hacked admin account

Resolved

 – I just blocked Graziaharstane indefinitely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for User:Pschemp - the account HAS been hacked, as confirmed by postings on the loveshack.org forums - a group of users managed to glean her password.

DO NOT trust any postings that Pschemp makes on here, and BLOCK her immediately.

The thread got deleted as a privacy violation from loveshack.org, but I can definitely confirm this has happened - so block her now. --Graziaharstane 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how that confirms anything. We would have to be pretty dim to just go and block that admin, we will watch the contribs though, thanks. ^(H) 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... yeah right. Cough. Pedro |  Chat  14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been previoulsy blocked for trolling and creating nonsense articles under the name User:Draxellings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, when Pschemp starts deleting the main page and blocking Jimbo, we'll listen. Until then, and until you give us some more concrete evidence, get lost. Moreschi ^Talk 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry to dissapoint but my account wasn't hacked. The outbreak of trolling from Graziaharstane is real though. :) pschemp | talk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to substantiate your claim. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous user Draxellings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted privacy violations into an article. It was reverted by me and deleted by Musical Linguist, and I think it has now been oversighted. ElinorD (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all go answer a privacy question about our birthmarks and then have to say where our birthmarks are whenever there is a suggestion of hacking accounts. :-) (No, I am not serious. Ogres are not born: we are hatched. Therefore, I have no birth marks.) Geogre 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose there's any chance a checkuser could be performed on those accounts? ;) The Evil Spartan 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is the third door on the left. But is a CU needed? obvious patterns of edits and trollery admit of blocking without the need for CU (if that's what is going on here... I didn't go check closely) ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admitted sockpuppetry and WP:POINT violation by User:Emnx

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx. User was editing as an IP address and with two user accounts. One account was obvious and created in violation of WP:POINT. The other user account was used to support the IP address' position without disclosure of the identity of the account with the IP address, which also continued to edit. IPSOS (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply not true!--Emnx 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts/IPs was admitted by you in this edit. IPSOS (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An incident during moving a page

Someone created page List of Notable Kalmyks/Oirats, and people edited it a few dozen times.

Someone cut-and-paste moved it to List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats, and changed its old name to a redirect to the new name.

Someone realized the mistake and tagged List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats db-histmerge for an admin to tidy the broken edit history.

I looked at both files' edit histories and realized that the page had not been edited in its new place at List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats and that List of Notable Kalmyks/Oirats contained all the text edits.

So I deleted List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats :: OK.

I moved List of Notable Kalmyks/Oirats to List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats the usual way.

I then found that List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats displayed merely a redirect-to-self and that it had NO recorded edits. Not merely one edit like a newly created file. It had zero number of edits. This is an abnormal situation. Attempt to edit the page did not put any edits into the file's history.

I gave up and watched the television news (BBC TV).

When I came back to my computer about 15 minutes later, List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats's missing edit history had reappeared from somewhere and things were OK again.

List of notable Kalmyks/Oirats's last (current) edit was a redirect-to-self, as tends to happen from moves, so I reverted back past it. OK.

This was likely caused by some sort of delay while a slave or something caught up, but it is worrying.

Anthony Appleyard 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to purge your cache after a history merge, if you didn't that could cause this. Prodego ^talk 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As a small note, I always viewed slashes in article titles as something to be avoided. Perhaps you may want to look for a way to accomplish the page without the slash. The word notable in the title also seems unneeded, something must be notable to be included within Wikipedia anyway. -M^ask? 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vexatious AfDs by User:Rodrigue

Rodrigue has a history of improperly starting AfDs and has been blocked before: See User talk:Rodrigue.

He has started 3 AfDs on a major Canadian news story currently before the courts: a school shooting, the school and even the historical figure the school is named after. He lists them improperly so that they don't show up in the Current Deletions article. The 2nd and 3rd AfDs are factually incorrect. The 1st AfD resulted in an admin userfying the article to make it better. They were not deleted for non-notability as he states.

Can those AfDs be speedily closed and this user sanctioned for improper, vexatious AfDs?

See: 1st - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting 2nd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute 3rd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Jefferys

and: User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting Canuckle 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to believe he's probably just a bit confused - but seeing that he's been warned about this, specifically, and that he has an extensive history of problems makes me very suspicious that this is in good faith. --Haemo 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Having dealt with Rodrigue far more than I desire to again (including two blocks), I can attest that those suspicions are entirely founded. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check

I semi protected the page because banned editor Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) is using a series of IPs to remove the request to check for sleeper accounts/range block to enforce the ban. If someone wants to unprotect and watch the page for vandalism that is fine, I just semi'd for the time being because it is getting to be a bit ridiculous.--Isotope23 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Readytodie

Can the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Readytodie be blocked? I gave him a last warning because he keeps uploading copyrighted images or with no fair use rationale. Also, he creates he creates pages with false informations which can be misleading. So I think this guy as proved that he has no intention of changing his ways or to respect the rules of wikipedia.VincentG 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You want this page, not here. --Haemo 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistant spamming at Bubba the Love Sponge

I am requesting clarification on what constitutes spam at Bubba the Love Sponge. Over the past several months, [136] has been added by numerous IP addresses, only to be removed by others. Someone mentioned that it may not have even been the 'official' fan-site. These IP addresses include,

• 69.182.28.183
• 64.252.197.69
• 64.252.208.71
• 206.213.251.31
• 69.177.110.78 - Has included the spam link within the body of the text.
• Bobdavis4 - Does not seem to be a very useful contributor, judging on his spamming. Has also included the spam link as so. Possibly the same as above.

And so on. The spamming has been ensuing for several months.

The spam has been reverted/removed by --

• Seicer (myself)
• LilDice
• 68.238.221.206
• Bobo The Ninja

The article was also protected by Majorly earlier for persistent spamming. I am requesting that the spam site be whitelisted or the page be semi-protected (I can cc the request there). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Razvanone

Resolved

Hy, Razvanone added This is the official PNL's page about his current leader - if somebody modifies the page, the old content is re-added. to Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu article.Dl.goe 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Nothing serious. You could have reverted yourself without admin help; see WP:REVERT for more details. —Kurykh 04:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Melbourne1

Resolved

Melbourne1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading pornographic images with spurious claims of having created the images. Corvus cornix 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged all images for speedy delete since they were lifted from another pornographic web-site. Not that I enjoyed doing it... :D Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Will somebody please help? He keeps edit warring to insert the porn images into articles. Corvus cornix 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All images have been deleted. I've also reverted all the edits regarding the pornographic images. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so have I, but he keeps putting them back in. Expect to see him re-uploading them. Corvus cornix 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Allanwrangler (talk · contribs), Chelseacharms (talk · contribs), Melbourne123 (talk · contribs), Maximounds (talk · contribs), Frankford (talk · contribs) all have similar or same edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User is now indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge

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

I had not intended to visit ANI prior to pursuing dispute resolution, but now think it might be a good idea, and I look forward to any advice people can offer here, prior to dispute resolution.

I was recently blocked by Bishonen (an administrator), after she accused me of harassment and gave me a block warning.[137] [138] Allegedly, I was harassing another administrator, KillerChihuahua ("KC"). The incident I am reporting here is action by Bishonen, and not action by KillerChihuahua; KillerChihuahua did not make the accusation of harassment, and did not give me a block warning.

The unblock request, which is here, was denied not because of harassment, but rather "for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I disagreed with that unblock decision (because I had already promised to disengage from KillerChihuahua before the block), but this ANI incident report is not about the block or the unblock request. This incident report is mainly about Bishonen's preceding accusation of harassment. I deny the harassment accusation, and want it resolved. Unfortunately, the background is a bit complicated, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. This whole controversy began regarding an organization called the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). On May 23, an editor who I do not know (and never communicated with) wrote in Wikipedia's fetal pain article that RCOG is "pro-choice".[139] Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag.[140] I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially).[141] KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice."[142] Also in the discussion thread at fetal pain, KC said:

“ The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.[143] ”

So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion.[144] [145] [146] Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue.

So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'"[147] Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera.[148] I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to KC's talk page, where I asked her to assume good faith.[149] Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.[150]

Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than here where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'"[151] KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs.[152] And she said: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was obviously incorrect, because KC had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."[153] I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again," and my edit summary said "let us not engage in smear jobs."

At this point, Bishonen jumped in.[154] KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. After the harassment accusation, I left a message at Bishonen's talk page saying I thought that KC was the one being malicious here.[155]

So those are the basic facts. I will not describe here the subsequent block; that block was upheld on other grounds which I find very unpersuausive, but that is a somewhat separate matter from the harassment accusation. I very much believe that I was not harassing anyone, and therefore the harassment accusation was false. Do you agree or disagree? What sort of dispute resolution would you recommend? Bishonen has already rejected mediation.[156] I feel very strongly that the harassment allegation was unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)

Some kind of mediation is needed. In the UK the term "pro choice" is loaded, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry about RCOG, which is a medical body. You've said lots of stuff about RCOG which doesn't agree with their webpage. One example would be about membership -- they've been very clear about who can be a member, and what type of member they can be, and what the requirments for that type of membership are. The term "Pro choice" does nothing to add any useful content to the article. Why is it there? It's obvious that a group of obgyns will include many people who do not disagree with abortion. Allow the term "pro choice" to be taken out, find a suitable alternative, and let people make up their own minds. Dan Beale 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to this specific point, I'd agree with that - "pro choice" is an american term and is biased towards american thinking and it's use would indicated an unbalanced articel as it tries to impose an americian context on external agencies, social and political systems such as the RCOG. --Fredrick day 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I appreciate your comment, but this Incident Report is not about whether the word "pro-choice" should be taken out or not. You say,"Allow the term 'pro choice' to be taken out." It already has been taken out. Whether it should be reinserted is a different question. The question here is: is Bishonen correct that I harassed KC?Ferrylodge 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I appreciate the info about the use of the term "pro-choice" in England, I really do. But no one made that point during the controversy at issue. You may be right, and I would be interested in looking into the different usages of the word "pro-choice" in the UK versus the US, but that is just not relevant to whether I harassed KC. And, Dan, every fact I stated about RCOG was fully cited by references and footnotes at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article; if you think there are mistakes in the RCOG article, please point them out at the RCOG article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the accusation of "harassment" is correct. You posted controversial material on a page against concensus, you then travelled to another page to make a similar point, you then posted on a talk page, and then you posted after reading this -"Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" message. In my opinion it'd be interesting to see an RfC. Dan Beale 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, your edit summary says that you think the harassment was perhaps "mild." I don't think there is such a thing. It's kind of like saying a "genial" case of murder. If it weren't a very serious charge, I wouldn't be here discussing it.

Anyway, I don't think you've correctly described what happened. I added a LOT of info about RCOG at the RCOG article, in addition to info about their abortion stance. The diffs are in my initial post above. A fetal pain article was not the appropriate place to get into such detail about RCOG. Moreover, when I was at the fetal pain article and decided to get the RCOG article involved, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.[157] [158]

Instead of focusing on various other edits, please focus on the edit that prompted this whole thing. This edit was not against consensus, because this edit had never before been made at any article; there were not even any comments at the RCOG talk page when I made this edit to the RCOG article.

Anyway, regarding an RfC, the guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible, unless someone volunteers to join me. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to endorse the complaint; i.e. to agree that it has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC, even though this whole thing is extremely time-consuming and costly for me.Ferrylodge 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let's have some definitions. From Wikipedia:Harassment, harassment is defined as "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Is the second part of that the problem here? No views as yet either way, I'm just providing the definition of what is not allowed. Moreschi ^Talk 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi. The second diff in my initial post here indicates that Bishonen was particularly accusing me of "user space harassment." Here's the definition, in case it might be helpful:

“ Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

”

Incidentally, I also quoted this definition in my unblock request.Ferrylodge 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Would someone please help me with an RfC? The guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to agree that the RfC has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC.Ferrylodge 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Ferrylodge is stating his block was unfair, as he'd only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on my talk page. He is leaving out a few details. After I said "I'm done", Ferrylodge posted twice morestill arguing the RCOG edit and accusing me of disruptive editing. Bishonen posted her "that's enough" message[159], then Ferrylodge posted "I most certainly am done here"[160], then linked it to another post he'd made on Bishonen's page, where he stated "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring". I removed that, as it constituted a back-door method of getting one last attack against me on my talk page, and he replaced the content, expanding slightly, but not the link. This constitutes edit warring on my talk page, to the tune of five edits, including a link to an attack and reverting me on my talk page, after being told the conversation was over. Oddly enough, he has mistaken five for once before, see my talk page for details (see the part of the section User talk:KillerChihuahua#Please Assume Good Faith concerning the diffs he'd asked for.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if KillerChihuahua would please use quotes instead of misdescribing what she thinks I stated. I never said that I only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on your talk page, KC. So, please don’t claim otherwise. What you say is false.

My initial post above focuses on what happened up until the harassment charge and block warning. For details about what happened after the harassment charge and block warning, people can see my unblock request, to which I linked in my initial post above. The issue here is whether the harassment accusation (accompanying the block warning) was appropriate, not whether the block was appropriate (I don’t think it was, but that matter is distinctly dealt with in my unblock request).

I do not think it would be helpful to get into an argument here about what I did or did not do after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning. Things are complicated enough already. Suffice it to say that I believe a person charged with harassment should be entitled to at least make a brief and polite denial of the charge, at the place the charge was made. That is why the following statement by me occurs at KC's talk page after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." As I have said elsewhere, I am grateful to KC for not deleting this denial of the harassment charge. And yes, KC, I think your behavior toward me was malicious; I said so when the harassment accusation was made, I said so in my unblock request, I said so in my initial post above, and I'm saying so again now. Saying so is the plain truth, and is not harassment.Ferrylodge 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected: you claimed to have made two posts, not one, according to your talk page: "I posted a brief goodbye which was deleted, and an hour later I posted the following at KC's talk page: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment" (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me.". You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done, and the edit in which you linked to your post on Bishonen's page - which she linked to as "the last straw", not your third edit after Bishonen's warning as you state on your talk page. Its still five edits, not two, and you left out, not only here but so far as I can tell, everywhere you've protested this block, the link you made to your post on Bishonen's talk page which was the reason Bishonen clearly linked to in her block statement to you. And if the issue is Bishonen's block, which you have stated is the case (unless I am somehow misunderstanding you) then what happened after the warning is highly germane. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you are misdescribing what I said, yet again. This statement of yours is simply false: "You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done." When you said "I'm done," you in no way suggested that I should not respond, and I immediately responded twice. The bulk of my two responses to your "I'm done" remark is quoted in my initial post above, as well as in my unblock request: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."

I have to work at my job until the end of the day, and therefore must take a break.Ferrylodge 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge is told to stop. Ferrylodge does not. Bishonen blocks. Why are we talking about this? End of story. Can't we find better things to cry about, like GNAA, or dead babies on wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Let's move on and write some articles, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester.Ferrylodge 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, give it a break. The more you type, the more any pretext to AGF in your case goes *poof* and the closer you get to being considered a troll. And see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, swatjester can call me a harasser without providing any explanation whatsoever, and imply that I am stupid to boot, but I must be polite and sweet. And you can suggest that I'm a troll, whereas I should be respectful and polite.Ferrylodge 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please try to read in context without adding your own spin to the words. My exact words, should you have missed them the first time were, "the closer you get to being considered a troll". Think that all the way through. Did I say you were a troll? No. Did I say that you might come to be considered one if you continue on your current path? Yes. Note that this is conditional. It all depends on your actions.

Swatjester is free to state his opinion, based on his no doubt careful reading of the evidence, that you were harrassing KC. I concur with his evaluation. I too am free to state my opinion in this matter.

As for implying that you are "stupid", I don't think Swatjester did that. I think he just tried to explain the issue in as simple a manner as possible so we could move on. Thank you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, please let's not haggle. If I were to say to you, "The closer you get to being a stinking asshole...." that would not be a compliment. And if I were to say to you (without elaboration), "This argument of yours is moronic...." that would not be a compliment either. They would both be insults. Period.Ferrylodge 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting this in context

This incident is the tip of an iceberg that is six months deep. Ferrylodge has been making tendentious edits throughout abortion-related articles since late Dec. 2006. If you want a full picture of the level of activity, see the the talk page of almost any abortion-related article (for example, Talk:Abortion (archives 26-27), Talk:Late-term abortion, Talk:History of abortion, Talk:Intact dilation and extraction, Talk:Fetal pain), or even the talk pages of some articles which are not inherently controversial and which are not natural extensions of the abortion topic (Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, Talk:Pregnancy). Honestly, I don't know what Ferrylodge hopes to accomplish with this, because, frankly, it's beginning to look like the "campaign to drive away productive contributors" described in WP:DE. Whether it was inappropriate for Bishonen to intercede at KillerChihuahua's talk page, the posts Ferrylodge made on KC's page and on Bishonen's page subsequent to the warning were hardly constructive, and served little more than to have the last word after being told not to post there again. There are a thousand things Ferrylodge could have said which might have justified posting again after being requested to stop, if the intent was toward dispute resolution, but confrontational statements like "I most certainly am done here" and "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her..." aren't among them. This dispute arose when Ferrylodge did not observe consensus at Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, by adding the description "pro-choice" to the article, which had already been objected to by 3 editors at Talk:Fetal pain. I don't really see where Ferrylodge's complaint is coming from in light of this and in light of the history of his involvement in Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa, it always muddies the waters to bring in extraneous issues. That has been happening in this thread from the start (e.g. "pro-choice" means something different in the UK than it does in the US). My regard for you is I'm sure as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower. However, it does no good to get into a huge brawl about extraneous issues, without addressing the issues at hand. And you are dishonest and misleading, as usual. When I said those words you quote --- "I most certainly am done here" --- that was shortly after KC had said "I'm done" and Bishonen had said "you're done." And now you're using those words of mine as some kind of evidence against me. This is most insincere of you, as usual. And neither you nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are.Ferrylodge 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Now I really must go for the day.Ferrylodge 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"My regard for you is as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower." Wow. Great way to prove you're a civil and cooperative editor. Next time, you might want to really impress people with your manners, and say, "dear nazi". Anyways, this is veeery simple. If bishonen had posted no warning at all, you might have a point. If she'd blocked you indefinitely, you'd probably have a point. But, when an administrator feels the need to get involved, and tell you, "Look. This is harassment. You're done.", and you follow that by posting, anything... um... no. Sorry, but just accept the block. It was just 24 hours, for the sake of stopping a specific behaviour. And you really might want to just stop for a little while, and look at everything that led up to this, and then see if you really think you were so horribly wronged. Or not. Your decision. Bladestorm 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having more of an issue with his assertion that Severa is "dishonest and misleading, as usual" - excuse me? One, Severa is painstakingly honest and a role model for AGF, and Two, NPA anyone? I'm getting more or less accustomed to having trash heaped on my head, as virtually my entire watchlist is controversial subjects, where I attempt to guide editors to work with each other, work towards and within consensus, follow policies, and remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, so I of course have lots of bad-faith and confrontational editors making wild accusations against me. So far in this thread Ferrylodge has managed to insult Bishonen, Swatjester, myself, and Severa, and that's just today. I'm beginning to think an Rfc might not be a bad idea after all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Ferrylodge's last post) It is completely relevant to consider the RCOG incident from the context of being the most recent example in a long pattern of similar incidents, rather than as being an isolated, first-time occurrence. It's seeing the forest for the forest, and not just its constituent trees. To quote the relevant bit of WP:DE:

"Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester. If you have a specific concern, please put it forward, but vague accusations like "you are dishonest and misleading, as usual" are only a hair's breadth from being as completely unhelpful as personal attacks ("I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester"). This is all starting to remind me of Cindery. -Severa (!!!) 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my brief reading of this thread, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with how it's being handled. If there were personal attacks, then could someone simply post the diffs, and this can be over with? Otherwise, as it stands (and I'm not saying this is the case), it just looks like people are unhappy with Ferrylodge for his/her position in an edit war (which, BTW, doesn't look like disruption to me, at least from what I've seen). If people could simply give the diffs, and tell Ferrrylodge exactly where (s)he went wrong rather than simply stating you made personal attacks, you deserved it, this could be over. In any case, the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made. Guys, provide the diffs, and we can close this dumb thread. Otherwise, it will look like a personal block. The Evil Spartan 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) You're kidding, right? Ferrylodge's personal attacks on this page alone should be sufficient evidence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no diffs because there was no harassment before the harassment charge was made.Ferrylodge 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You realise that that reads as, "there was no harassment before the harassment charge, but after that ..." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What occurred after the harassment charge was complicated. As shown by the response to my unblock request, the person who denied my unblock request also said that I should not have been blocked for the reasons Bishonen gave. As this whole long section shows, this matter is complicated, and I am trying to keep it focussed on what I see as the grossest error: the harassment charge. How can anything that happened later possibly be relevant to whether that harassment charge was a gross error?Ferrylodge 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Severa, you say that I've been "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive". You cited a comment that I made ("I most certainly am done here"), but this was misleading and dishonest of you, because that quoted comment immediately followed the statement "I'm done" by KC, and "You're done" by Bishonen. Can't you see that the example you cite proves that I was merely echoing what had been said to me? Why should you be able to call me "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive" (and a million other disparaging words you have used for me), but I should never say anthing less than flattering to you? Do you deny that when I said "I most certainly am done here" it was immediately after almost identical statements by KC and Bishonen?

I feel that you are simply trying to distract from the issue here. There was no harassment by me to justify Bishonen's accusation of harassment. No one has cited ANY diff of me harassing KC prior to when Bishonen uttered the word "harassment." No one here at this ANI page has bothered to consider the facts of this edit dispute. You can bring in extraneous accusations if you like, and maybe you have found some Wikipedia guideline to justify trying to bring in extraneous factors, but I know this for certain: there is no Wikipedia guideline to justify ignoring non-extraneous factors.Ferrylodge 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, you obviously didn't take the time to look at Killer Chihuahua's talk page. You should go do that now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

When did it become the responsibility of the reader of AN/I to find the relevant examples of misbehavior? Telling us to "do your research" when someone asks for these diffs only makes your case look less persuasive. I'm with Evil Spartan here: you make your point more quickly & more effectively by furnishing diffs than all parties involved exchanging heated words with each other. And if you don't like that opinion, then don't complain when you fail to persuade the rest of us that something bad happened. -- llywrch 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on what this thread is: Ferrylodge started it to see if there was support for an Rfc against Bishonen's block of him (not an exact quote). Many diffs have been provided by several people posting here. The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of; nor is it Ferrylodge's incivility (which comments about here concern almost exclusively his posts in this very thread, hence, no link necessary). The block was made, and reviewed by at least two administrators and unblock was delcined. Ferrylodge is seeking some kind of redress or acknowledgement that the block was inappropriate. Do you find grounds for this? Do you require diffs for his assertions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, KC, put yourself in my place. I don't spend an inordinate amount of each day on Wikipedia, but I have been around for a while. I don't like troublemakers, I don't like tendentious editors, & I don't like established editors who decide that they're special & the rules don't apply to them any more. So any time someone claims that they are the victim of one of these three, I'll start to read what they have to say.

However, too many effing times when a charge like this is raised, the discussion disintegrates into the equivalent of a bunch of 5-year-olds whining "he hit me first" -- "no he hit me first". In other words, the good guys are acting just like the bad guys & I can't tell the difference. I might have wanted to get involved, find out who did what & act on it. But like too many other threads in this forum, after a few minutes of reading, I end up wanting to just toss all parties involved into a windowless room, lock the door, & tell them only one person gets to leave the room alive.

I've been involved in a few disputes myself. So I know quite well that only a true saint could keep her/his temper in such a situation, & not start playing dirty because the other side has been. That is why I'm insisting that all parties actually try to fight this temptation, & just give us the diffs. Otherwise if I want to get involved, I have to choose my side based on which person is more familiar to me -- because I'm very much aware that I only have a small slice of time to decide & make a difference. The time I spend untangling a dispute is time I could have spent making edits -- & I'd rather make edits.

Yes, I am being lazy. Yes, this is unfair to everyone who is involved in the dispute. But I'm going to let you in on a secret: most people involved in Wikipedia think like me -- we're here to edit articles. We could care less about how X is being treated unfairly by Y. Why shouldn't we just give them heavy & sharp weapons, lock them both into a room, tell them only one gets to come out alive, & let the rest of us contribute to Wikipedia? If you want me to care, then do the work for me so I understand what the problem is & make me care.

So far I've spent an hour writing a response to you that I could have spent improving articles on Wikipedia -- well, I hope my edits improve them. I happen to know I'm a crappy writer, so it takes me probaly twice or three times as long to write a response that is as intelligible as anyone else. Asking me to defend my opinions steals far more time from my ability to edit than anyone else. If you want me to argue my point -- that people disputing behavior in this forum need to furnish ample facts & not just argue over who hit who first -- I'll argue them. But some articles I could be improving will continue to languish in their present state because I didn't have the time to work on them.

<A very naughty word or phrase>, maybe I ought to simply not care about who is screwing over whom on Wikipedia, trade my Admin bit for a gift certificate on Amazon, & stay in my forgotten corner of Wikipedia where I can edit undisturbed. Some days, I think that would be a better use of my time. -- llywrch 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you say, "The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of...." It's not surprising to me that you would want people to look the other way, and ignore the description of administrator misconduct that I gave above. You certainly have ignored the blockquote. No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation. You are doing your best to direct people away from that edit dispute, and quite understandably so, given what the facts show.

The question at hand is whether I harassed you during the edit dispute, i.e. before the harassment accusation was made. Yes, I reacted imperfectly after the harassment accusation, and I even got blocked, but all that happened after the harassment accusation was made. Will you ever address the blockquote in my initial post above? Will anyone? Is there anyone here who has bothered to consider the implications of that blockquote? Or is everyone at Wikipedia too busy to consider details? That's where the devil is, in the details.

The whole matter leading up to the harassment accusation was one long personal attack on me.

Now, I am not being soft-spoken here. I know that. Swatjester calls this whole thing "stupid" and says I'm a harasser without saying why. So I'll call him vapid. It was a vapid comment he made. "I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester." What I hope to do is convey my disrespect for people who are not considering, much less addressing, the facts.

I'm sorry this is coming across negatively. But I feel that KC is urging people to ignore my initial post (especially the blockquote), just like she has been consistently doing. I feel like KC, and by extension Bishonen, are just having whatever they did rubberstamped here, without any serious consideration of the edit dispute.Ferrylodge 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am the person who brought up the initial concerns at Fetal pain that lead to the content dispute. I've been following this quietly, and felt like I can try to address this concern of Ferrylodge: the blockquote. I think the most important part of the blockquote is It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. Note may and I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. So KC posted something that MAY have been sympathetic to the content Ferrylodge wanted to include concerning the RCOG. However, KC clearly stated that she needed time to think that one over. Was KC given that time? The comment was made 22:58, 24 May 2007 but the phrase "pro-choice position" which was still under dispute at Talk:Fetal pain was added to Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at 13:26, 25 May 2007. 24 hours later, this addition was reverted by Severa, and in an edit summary Ferrylodge acknowledged the KC stated that she needed to think things over.

What is clear to me is that KC's biggest concern was that associating the word "Pro-choice" with the RCOG would paint them as some sort of political activist group, when they are a reputable medical organization. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's rewording did not alleviate these concerns; that saying the RCOG held a pro-choice position was still connoting that they were an activist group. Ferrylodge has tried to paint KC as having flip-flopped on this issue, but I only see consistency. The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text.

I believe that in this content dispute Ferrylodge was a little premature in the editing, and it would have helped to discuss things out further on talk, and perhaps make proposals before editing the article. I also admit that because this conflict dealt with 2 different articles (some perhaps not on the watchlist of those editors involved in the dispute), things were not always cut and dry (I was not involved at RCOG, but I was involved at Fetal pain). I also that KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were "disruptive" was accurate. Editors should know better than to re-insert a disputed wording right in the middle of a content dispute. Someone doesn't get controversial content into an article by force, you get it in through consensus (well... if it's controversial enough, it won't get in at all). After that, happened, Ferrylodge went to an admin's page (KC) and told her to assume good faith, trying to defend his edit warring as non-disruptive. It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with "Please Assume Good Faith". The fact of the matter is, we had been discussing the "pro-choice" label in regards to the RCOG on the fetal pain talk page. That spilled over to the RCOG page. The content was removed from the fetal pain article while discussion was on going. Then the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice, with no editors supporting the changes (yet 3 showing concern over them). Just because Ferrylodge posted a justification for the edit on talk does not give him a free pass to edit war. The proper process would have been to post on talk first, see what other editors felt, and once reached a consensus, then edit the article. Not the other way around. So when KC wrote, in reply to the AGF claim Ferrylodge threw at her on her talk page, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I agree 100% with that sentiment.

The discourse went downhill from there. Uninvolved editors and admin got involved, siding with KC, and it got to the point where Ferrylodge was warned by an admin. Ferrylodge readily admits that he ignored the admin and was banned for doing that. That ban was uphealed by other uninvolved admins. I just wanted to post my perspective above, and say that I support the admins actions thus far and do not feel that any action or sanction against Bishonen is appropriate. Trying to get the last word in, and defending his pride, even when told to back down is what got Ferrylodge blocked. It seems like this block has only made the sentiment stronger (I was hoping for the opposite result). I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on.-Andrew c 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I would like to respond. You say that the most important part of the blockquote is "It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over." But you have grabbed that sentence completely out of context, without either the preceding or following sentence. The full blockquote is:

"The way you have it phrased, they are a 'pro-choice group' - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."

The sentence before and the sentence after make it crystal clear that she was 100% certain that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group." There is no ambiguity there. Zero. Yet when I later made a single edit that said RCOG had a pro-choice position on the issue of reducing abortion time limits, she cited diffs that had absolutely nothing to do with that being a pro-choice position. And she cited those diffs as evidence of me being (A) disruptive, (B) edit-warring, (C) having bad faith. And merely for arguing to the contrary I was charged with harassment. There is not one single diff of one single harassing thing I said to KC prior to or leading up to the harassment charge. This has been one long personal attack against me, and I do not find your plucking a sentence out of context to show anything relevant.

You emphasize that "The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it." There were ambiguous aspects of the blockquote, but KC was completely unambiguous that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group."

You are correct that "KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text." So she reverted my edit at the RCOG article. However, she also accused me at that same instant of being disruptive and editing against consensus, at which point I took the discussion to her talk page and politely asked her to assume good faith. She refused, accused me of edit warring and bad faith, cited irrelevant diffs, and then Bishonen accused me of harassment. The whole thing was a set-up as far as I can tell. There has been a history of friction between myself on the one hand, and KC/Severa/Andrew c on the other hand, and this incident followed directly therefrom, IMHO.

Andrew c, you say that, "KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were 'disruptive' was accurate." It's very difficult for me to know which reverts you are speaking of. I made an edit at the RCOG article saying that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. KC reverted it. I never reverted it back. It remains as KC left it. So I do not know what two reverts you are speaking of.

You say, "It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with 'Please Assume Good Faith.'" She had just called me disruptive, and I wanted her to assume that I was not being disruptive. What was I supposed to say, "Please Assume Bad Faith"?

You say, "the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice." Andrew c, the edit that led to this whole dispute was an edit where I wrote that RCOG took a pro-choice position on abortion time limits. I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement. KC reverted it, and I never reverted it back. Is there now a zero-revert-rule for Ferrylodge (0RR), where Ferrylodge gets into deep doo-doo whenever he reverts zero times in a row? When KC wrote, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I also agree 100% with that sentiment. However I was not edit-warring against consensus. Multiple editors had not informed me that it would be inappropriate to characterize as pro-choice RCOG's position against reducing abortion time limits.

And Andrew c, I do not readily admit that I "ignored the admin and was banned for doing that." What I admit is that I wanted to deny the harassment charge before leaving KC's page, and I ultimately did post that denial under threat of a block ("I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment"). All of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You are correct that the block was upheld by uninvolved admins, but not because of any harassment. Go look at the unblock request at my user talk page. It was upheld merely to disengage the dispute. And again, all of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You say, "I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on." I would like to oblige, but I feel that the edit dispute here was outrageous leading up to a bogus harassment charge, and I have been unfairly branded a harasser, an edit-warrior, a disrupter, and a person of bad faith. I will continue to make every effort to get an acknowledgment that I am none of those things. And then I will decide whether to stay or leave Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address the edit warring issue. KC posted the 3 diffs on her talk page regarding the RCOG article. Here they are: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007. You said above I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement However, the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition, it's over the "pro-choice" label. Look at the diffs. You added "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" to the article 3 times. The first 2 times you were reverted by Severa, the last time by KC. The content dispute that started on Talk:Fetal pain and spilled over at the RCOG talk page dealt specifically with the label "pro-choice" and how and if it applied to RCOG. There clearly was no consensus yet on this topic when you added the content. Severa removed the controversial content while the content dispute was ongoing. You re-inserted it twice after this which eventually resulted in KC's revert where she said you were being disruptive (which lead to you going to her talk page and the rest is history). As I stated above, there is no reason to insert controversial content into an article during an edit dispute. This does not necessarily make you an "edit-warrior", but it does demonstrate that you were edit warring at this particular article. And by association, edit in this manner is disruptive. 3 times you added content which labeled RCOG as "pro-choice" even though multiple other editors had previously shown concern over this and no consensus had been reached yet on the matter. I'm not saying this in order to brand you as negative label, mind you, but I am saying that KC's initial concerns that sparked your comments to her are not simply 'bogus'.-Andrew c 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I do not see that you are saying anything relevant here.

First of all, regarding the three diffs you cite, none of them happened at KC’s talk page. Bishonen charged me with user space harassment, so I don’t see how those three diffs establish anything regarding the harassment charge. Perhaps I misunderstand, and Bishonen meant to charge me with harassment at the RCOG article. But the only type of harassment she mentioned to me was user space harassment.

Regarding what happened in the RCOG article, perhaps a brief analogy will help. Suppose you make edits at some article to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. These are three different issues. If you get reverted on the first one twice, it’s not any offense at all for you to write the last one once. That’s basically what happened to me at the RCOG article. I wrote that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits only once, and then I was reverted with the accusation that I was disruptive, which soon escalated to accusations of edit-warring, bad faith, and harassment.

You and KC cited three diffs from the RCOG article. How they relate to user space harassment is beyond my understanding. But let’s consider those three diffs: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007.

Only in the last one did I assert that RCOG takes a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits, and that's what got me in trouble here. Andrew c, you say “the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition.” But then why is your third diff about the time limit addition? KC was very clear that the edit-warring accusation was indeed about the time limit addition. See here.

KC was wrong. I never wrote at any other article that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. It simply never happened, and therefore KC’s accusation of edit-warring is simply false.

KC wrote that my characterization of the time limit addition was “virtually the same contested assertion” as assertions I made elsewhere, and therefore amounted to edit-warring. But the blockquote in my initial post above shows KC saying that merely using the word “pro-choice” twice in connection with RCOG does not create two assertions that are virtually the same. RCOG’s position on reduction of abortion time limits deals with a political question about what the governing law should be. It is very different from an RCOG statement about what should happen under existing law. I was trying to address KC’s assertion that RCOG was merely trying to follow the law --- she had said that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.”[161]

Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges. The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two. And of course NONE of them occurred at KC’s talk page, and thus they do not help to establish user space harassment.Ferrylodge 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being totally confused. When KC above suggested "Please focus on what this thread is" regarding your initial concerns with Bishonen's harrassment ban, you said No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation.. How can you say that the original edit dispute is so important, yet when I address the original edit dispute, you say that it is off topic? That I am comparing apples to orenges? You disputed that you were an edit-warrior and a disruptor (in addition to disputing that you were a harrasser). Above, I was addressing the former claims. The latter claim was addressed in my post below this. I'm perfectly fine with not addressing the content dispute again. I guess I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss it when you claimed KC wanted "people to look the other way".-Andrew c 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, at 14:40 on 31 May, I wrote in this thread, "I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page...." No dispute there. I just don't see how your previous comment says anything relevant to establishing harassment or edit-warring or disruption or bad faith on my part. As far as "comparing apples and oranges", I already explained: "The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two." The third of your three diffs involves a position of RCOG about one thing, and the first two involve a position of RCOG about another very different thing. So I don't see how you can cite the last diff as evidence that I was edit-warring or being disruptive or having bad faith. It's only one crummy diff, after all.Ferrylodge 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset)Since there is this big issue about "post the diff of harrassment", I felt I'd give it a shot. I'd first ask editors to simply read Talk:Fetal pain, Talk:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and User talk:KillerChihuahua and look at the article diffs. FL and KC were involved in an edit dispute. FL was edit warring at RCOG, and KC reverted the controversial edits and said Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit. The consensus and OR remarks reference previous talk page discussions, and the "disruptive" remark references the "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" disputed text that was twice added to the article after it was removed once due to talk page concerns (by Severa). So in defense (or retaliation) to having been called a disruptive editor:

• FL goes to KC's talk page and posts this. Asking an established editor to "Please Assume Good Faith" may be baiting, or it may be a gentle reminder that we are all human and fallible. The post starts off polite. It digresses into accusations against two editors, claiming that they needed to address the topic to FL's standards in order to remove disputed content. Nothing completely unreasonable at face value, mind you, but still on the offense and maybe even antagonistic. Bold and brash.

However, KC and FL have a history, look at User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive09#Moving Stuff to Talk Page. It's almost deja vu. Back and forth between the two. With this taken into consideration, the initial "Please Assume Good Faith" post by FL is a round about way of saying "I'm in the right, you are in the wrong, explain your actions to my satisfaction". In a very succinct manner, KC replied to this, stating clearly "edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive." This explains how FL's behavior can be classified as "disruptive". While perhaps these points could be disputed (I personally agree with them), FL does not respond by saying "how was I edit warring?" or "where is the consensus?":

• FL replies with this, accusing KC of edit-warring, and ignoring the previous comment. This sort of accusation and tone can be seen as harassment. The conversation is no longer a dialog about wikipedia policy and past actions, its about who is in the wrong.

At this point, and uninvolved editor comes along and says "Nope, don't see any edit-warring on KC's part. Sorry."

• FL replies asking if the user feels he had participated in edit warring, and if he agrees that KC ignored the initial post. This is another snide comment regarding KC's reading comprehension.

Then an involved editor comes along and tries to explain further how FL was edit warring but KC was not.

• FL replies by saying the accusations against him are "totally ridiculous" and that everyone is lacking even an "ounce of objectivity". But somehow saying that is ok because he used an emoticon.

KC replies that FL has misrepresented the situation and explained how this was about more than a single edit by FL.

• FL replies, implying KC is lying or being deceptive, and demands that evidence is supplied up to his standards.

KC does so, but not without saying the task was tedious and not necessary unless for the purposes of a RfC.

• FL replies that KC is "very much mistaken", and tries to claim that KC said something that FL believes to support the controversial edits that started this mess, while neglecting to comment on the the diffs KC provided that he had previously demanded be shown.
• He then posts a post script where he says and I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again. Again this comment is only reactionary and antagonistic towards KC, accusing her of disruptive editing again, using a snide tone.

Sure KC had ended her previous post by expressing that she was fed up with trying to meet the demands FL had placed on her. KC wasn't entirely calm and sweet through the conflict. There was some back-and-forth going on, but KC stuck on point and avoided unfounded claims. At this point, the uninvolved admin came along and warned Ferrylodge to stop posting on KC's talk page. He had demanded that KC explain her revert up to his standards. Demanded an explanation on how his edits were disruptive, demanded an explanation on how he had edit warred, demanded diffs for his edit warring, and then once all that was meet, replied by saying KC was very mistaken and accused her of being a disruptive editor. All of this was because Ferrylodge edited the same controversial content multiple times during a content dispute, was reverted, and told those sorts of edits are disruptive. Read the conversation for yourself and judge whether it is harassment or not. Regardless of whatever label you want to use for the situation, the warning and subsequent ban were necessary at the time to deter the provocation and escalation of the situation. Unfortunately, as shown by the continuation of this discussion, the ban did not serve the intended purpose but itself acted to escalate matters (but at least the personal talk page conflict for KC has ended). That is how I see things. If other users (especially those asking for diffs) now want to examine the situation themselves and comment on FL and KC's actions, on the appropriateness of the ban, or anything else, please do so.-Andrew c 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. Andrew c, your comment begins by saying "FL was edit warring at RCOG." That's what you argued in your previous comment, and I've already responded to it as well as I can in my previous comment. So I will not now repeat what I said in my previous comment. However, I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page, so I would urge anyone who may still be around to please read my previous comment rebutting Andrew c.

Andrew c, to your credit you are now citing what happened at KC's talk page. However, you have cited about seven diffs of my statements at KC's talk page without indicating which ones you think establish user space harassment. For example, you cited my initial comment at KC's talk page, and I do not understand how it in any way helps to establish harassment. It was completely polite. Just citing a bunch of diffs without saying which ones you think establish harassment is kind of vague.

Moreover, Wikipedia has a specific definition of harassment: "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."[162] But I did not notice where you pointed to any nitpicking I did of any good-faith edits, or where I made repeated personal attacks (certainly none that were any more personal than what KC was saying to me), or posted any personal information. And you have not specified which diffs (if any) suggest comparable stuff on my part. You can't.

Wikipedia also has a particular definition of user space harassment: "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."[163] But I do not notice where you pointed to any warnings I made at KC's talk page, or used sockpuppets or tags, or posted embarassing info, or anything like that. I do concede that I may be annoying to KC, and she is certainly annoying to me, but I suspect that the "material" referred to in the guidelines refers to "material" other than mere conversational statements.

Anyway, I've responded this morning as best I can to your two long comments here, Andrew c. I don't think Bishonen had any legitimate grounds for accusing me of harassment. Again, I've got to be unavailable for the rest of the day, due to employment. Thanks for hearing me out.Ferrylodge 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It also might be helpful to look at things the following way. Suppose you presume that all my conduct in the RCOG article was completely legitimate (i.e. no edit-warring, no disruption, no bad faith), and that KC was mistaken about that. Using that presumption, was there anything remotely approaching harassment at KC's talk page? I think not.Ferrylodge 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Even if one outright ignores that the RCOG article even exists(and this is easy for me to do, because I'd never heard of it before this incident, and never went back since), this was arguably somewhat harassing. (Little 'PSs' are almost always asking for troubles. Especially when they're phrased in the style of, "I know you are, but what am I?")

And, when you saw this, and you thus absolutely and definitively knew that another single post on KC's talkpage would be considered harassment, and get you blocked, you still did it anyways. You knew that'd be considered harassment, and yet you did it anyways. And yet, KC simply removed it. But, if nothing else, you now knew for certain that your comments were not desired. At all. Not even to say "I'm done". And yet you still did it again! By then, there was no way to take it as being anything but harassment. Because you knew for certain that it wouldn't be welcome, and yet you added it anyways. And you tried to use it to get the last word in. And you implicitly acknowledged that it was unwanted harassment when you asked him not to delete the comment (it perfectly illustrated that you knew he didn't want it there, but still expected him to keep it anyways). That is, even if you are given the heaviest of bias in regards to the RCOG article itself, there was absolutely no excuse for that last addition. And no way to take it as anything but harassment. I don't care about RCOG. I don't even remember what it stands for. This wasn't about someone unfairly taking sides. Nor was it based on personal opinions on a content dispute in some article. It was about clear and easily identified misconduct. My only suggestion is that you simply drop it and move on. There's no reason you can't contribute a lot; but that'll require assuming a bit of good faith in people. Bladestorm 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, okay, let’s presume that everything I did at the RCOG article was perfectly appropriate, so we would have to also presume that KC was the one who erred at the RCOG article. And we would also have to presume that when KC kept saying at her talk page that I had been disruptive, and that I had behaved in bad faith, and that I had been edit-warring, that KC was completely wrong to say all that, and was falsely accusing me of some pretty serious stuff. Okay, so there I was at KC’s talk page, and presumably she was wrongly accusing me of all these things after wrongly reverting me at the RCOG article, and you say it was arguably harassment on my part to merely say, “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” You’re seriously suggesting that it would be okay for KC to falsely accuse me of being disruptive, but not okay for me to accurately accuse her of being disruptive? That’s just not plausible.

Here’s the harassment accusation. I want an acknowledgment that it was heinously unjustified. Yes, I could have behaved better after that harassment accusation (though I do not think it was unreasonable for me to want to deny that charge at the page where it was made). But the point here is not what happened after. The point is that the charge was unfounded. Bogus. Trumped up. Rude. Your only diffs are from after the charge was made.Ferrylodge 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this thread

Let's get to the point. The further I look into this edit war, the clearer it becomes to me that this is just an edit war, and that light incivility occurred on both sides (accusing others of being disruptive is light incivility, and occurs often in disputes; personal attacks, like f* you, are heavy incivility). I could provide diffs to back up my notion, but I prefer to forgive and forget, just as Ferrylodge said at the begining of the thread.

Now, the point: Ferrylodge, can you briefly sum up why you think Bishonen was out of line by blocking you (see the bold message at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes), diffs included. And if anyone could briefly respond to Ferrylodge, point by point, with diffs, as to why it's not a good argument, that would be appreciated. As it stands, I've sat here reading forever, and it's still way too much for me. If Bishonen had been involved in this edit war and then blocked Ferrylodge, I could see an RFC being valid - nothing is worse than personal blocks, IMHO. What I'm getting at is: was there a conflict of interest in the blocking? However, there is a good chance this will be ignored, and it might just be easier to let it pass by, unless there is a history of such problems with Bishonen, or she does it again.

In any case, please respond below. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You seem to travel an awfully long way on a single banana peel there. Unless I do what again? Bishonen | talk 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Improperly blocking again. However, if you read the statement, that was under the theoretical possibility that you did anything wrong to begin with. Which is what Ferrylodge will briefly prove here. The Evil Spartan 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will he, now. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, why are you assuming bad faith on my part? I'm completely uninvolved in this. Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words? Please read my statement again. The Evil Spartan 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spartan, perhaps you should re-read this thread. All of it. Including what you wrote. And possibly apologise to Bishonen. Just a thought. I could be in error. Anything is possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

that was under the theoretical possibility that you - bold added to show how I'm reading Evil Spartan's words. Dan Beale 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The part which concerns me is "why are you assuming bad faith on my part?... Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words" and I imagine Bishonen is having trouble swallowing "Ferrylodge will briefly prove here" - neither of which admit any possibility whatsover other than that Ferrylodge is completely in the right and can prove it; and Bishonen is failing to AGF and "looking" to "misuse" Spartan's words. Perhaps you would care to reconsider and rephrase, Spartan? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Spartan, you and I must be reading different ANI's. FL has shown himself to be petulant, angry, disruptive, and, let's be frank, childish (OK, I'm repeating petulant). This diff alone indicates a certain lack of maturity. KC and Bishonen have shown remarkable levels of patience with FL, whose edits on these topics go way over what I would personally tolerate as disruptive. Do not interpret this as an attack Spartan, but if you're going to defend FL, please show us where he's acted in good faith and maturely. I'm not seeing it. Orangemarlin 22:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The point of this thread" is indeed the point. In his statement of his complaint, a long, long, long, long statement of why he has the right version. In his statement of the dispute, another argument about why he's right. AN/I is not for content disputes. If we can possibly strip the content dispute (which is going on by both sides in this thread), what do we have? "I was blocked when I hadn't been disruptive" or "I was blocked when I wasn't being very disruptive?" No one here is going to rule on the content dispute. The only thing we can do is try to counsel (rather than rule) about whether the block was justified by the behavior, not by the truthfulness of either point of view. From what I can tell, the block wasn't effective (preventing further disruption and poisoning of the atmosphere), but it does seem to be warranted (an escalating anger and desire to be proven right). Geogre 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The block was righteous, and there's no need for thousands more words of discussion on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For present purposes, I don't care if the block was righteous. The issue (in my mind) is whether this harassment accusation accompanied by block threat was righteous. I’m not talking about the subsequent block, or anything else that happened after the harassment accusation accompanied by block threat.

Harassment is a serious charge, and of course it’s even more serious to say, basically, “go away harasser and say not another word here, not even to deny that you’re a harasser, or else you’ll be blocked.” Which is what Bishonen did to me. I didn’t react as well as I could have afterward, but all of that is subsequent fallout.

Wikipedia has a definition of harassment here. I’ve quoted it several times at this ANI. But no one supporting Bishonen’s decision has quoted it or even linked to it. No one has cited a particular diff from KC’s talk page (where the harassment allegedly occurred), and said that it violates a particular aspect of the Wikipedia harassment policy. The way to avoid bullying and name-calling is to stick to the facts and the guidelines.

Perhaps the most confusing thing about this whole situation is the extent to which the legitimacy of Bishonen’s accusation of harassment at KC’s talk page depends on whether or not I had been bad at the RCOG article. After all, that’s what KC and I were arguing about at her talk page. Even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article, I still don’t think that anything said at KC’s talk page amounted to harassment on my part, under Wikipedia’s definition. I was not angelic at KC’s talk page, and neither was she. But harassment? Come on. So far, the worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to the harassment charge was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” It was not an angelic thing to say, but KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (bad faith as well as edit-warring). Can anyone show that I said anything worse than this at KC’s talk page prior to the harassment charge? Evidently not.

So, there was no harassment by me, even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article. And I can prove that I was good at the RCOG article! The edit that I made at the RCOG article that started this whole thing is here. KC says I was being disruptive, but I was not. The edit merely said that RCOG took a pro-choice position about what the law should be. I had never before made such an edit, and I have never made such and edit since, so it’s not possible to accurately say that that edit exemplifies disruption or edit-warring or bad faith.

I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I bite back when bitten. But I edit in good faith, I am honest, I do not engage in harassment, and I should not have to deal with such incredibly nebulous, vague accusations.Ferrylodge 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please limit comments to one paragraph or less?--Popeye Doyle 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure.Ferrylodge 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well...? Can you summarize it for those of us who don't feel like reading it all? Aeon Flux 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(undenting) For present purposes, I don't care if the block was righteous. The issue (in my mind) is whether this harassment accusation accompanied by block threat was righteous. I’m not talking about the subsequent block (which was for disengagement purposes), or anything else that happened afterward. Wikipedia defines harassment here, and I didn't come close. KC and I were arguing at her talk page about whether I had been bad at a particular article (about RCOG). I was not angelic at KC’s talk page, and neither was she. But harassment? The worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to the harassment charge was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (bad faith as well as edit-warring). So even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article, there was no harassment. And I was good at the RCOG article! The edit that I made at the RCOG article that started this whole thing is here. KC says I was being disruptive, but I was not. The edit merely said that RCOG took a particular position about what the law should be. I had never before made any such edit even similar to this, and I have never made such an edit since, so it’s not possible to accurately say that that edit exemplifies disruption or edit-warring or bad faith, as KC did. Bishonen had no business calling me a harasser, and telling me to go away without even denying her charge. Not even KC had asked me to go away.Ferrylodge 14:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it really is possible to make a mountain out of a molehill. Who knew. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jim, an accusation of harassment is a molehill, and so is a block threat. My mistake. I must now go to work and unfortunately will not be here for the rest of the day.Ferrylodge 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FL, you missed the sarcasm. But reading what you have written above, you've missed quite a bit of the point of this ANI. Orangemarlin 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemarlin for that brilliant comment. Actually, this present comment I am writing, as well as the comment immediately before yours, were sarcasm.Ferrylodge 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to proceed with a Request for Comment, as described here. This ANI discussion has been turbulent but helpful. Thank you.Ferrylodge 17:06, 2 June 2007 (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.