Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copyright Violations 2 User:Carld2002 3 KMweber's welcome template 4 Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry 5 Derogatory comments in apparent contravention of an Arbcomm ruling 6 Deleted page 7 London 8 User:SynergeticMaggot 9 tendentious reinsertions at 'Gakhars' & 'Kayanis (Tribe)‎' 10 Review of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey 11 Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions 12 Heliac blocked 13 Keeper76 (admin): Uncivil, expletive-laced language, with several personal attacks 14 "Hearing from Lawyers" 15 Harassment and attempts to reveal personal information 16 Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable? 17 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd 18 Disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami 19 User:George512 20 Legal threat 21 Coordinated Distruption? 22 Ugh, more of that article 23 User:Wwwwwwhatsup 24 User:216.49.77.67 25 Legal threat, User:Nukeh 26 Elspeth Monro socks 27 User adding copyright content and then removing CSD I9 tags 28 Anonymous IP utilizing Semi-Protection Templates. 29 POV Acupuncturist 30 Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy 31 Cross-post: Official Election Announcement 32 Incivility / NPA - 69.244.181.184 33 User:98.210.14.5 at Stefan Banach 34 Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy 35 SimpsonsFan08 sock block sanity check 36 Continued vandalism of Tracy McGrady and possible sockpuppetry 37 Problem with User:R. fiend merging license plate articles 38 password email 39 User:Badger Drink 40 User:Chensiyuan 41 Incipient edit war at User:Videmus Omnia 42 User:CharlesFinnegan 43 Statement re Wikilobby campaign 44 User:Ottava Rima 44.1 For those curious 44.2 Proposed restriction: Ottava Rima banned from WP:FAC except for own nominations, reviewable after one month

[edit] Copyright Violations

I am requesting administrator assistance in regards to the constant copyright violations by User:McLeod1 (talk). This user has in particular frequently added copyright-subject episode summaries to the Category:McLeod's Daughters seasons, most recently in McLeod's Daughters (season 6), which I reverted only minutes ago. Most recently, the user has created new articles about individual McLeod's Daughters episodes (see McLeod's Daughters (season 6)#Episodes). These articles are composed completely of copyright-subject material and ought to be deleted.

I, as well as numerous other editors (User:Ultraexactzz, User:Bidgee, User:Collectonian), have warned McLeod to stop contributing copyright-subject material but the user has not taken any notice whatsoever and has continued to add copyright-subject material.

I beleive User:McLeod1 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia to prevent any more copyright violations, to protect the project's reputation and to save other editors the time for having to clean it up.

Thankyou, Daniel99091 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

Told him about this discussion. If he does another edit again, I will block him immediately. Can you point to where he's getting his stuff from? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the last violation, the user copied the summaries from [www.australiantelevision.net www.australiantelevision.net]. I tagged these today and the articles have been deleted. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] User:Carld2002

After being blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia Carld2002 posted the following image: Image:Hellfffo.jpg. (enter at own risk) Can anything be done? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the pic may be a good start!!! --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was quick. Good work. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No problem ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, now I have to go clean out my brain. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KMweber's welcome template

If you are familar with KMweber, then you will be familar with his borg like utterances of Oppose; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. at RFA and keep it exists at AFD. That's fine, if kurt wants to spend his time just cutting and pasting that from page to page - that's his business and I don't consider it a problem (because people just screen it out).

However Kurt seems to be getting frustrated with the lack of progress he has made and now is actively trying to recruit (and I don't think there is a better word for it) new users with this non-standard welcome. Now in theory, if people want to make their own welcomes we don't have a problem with that - my concern is that to the novice user, that template reads as "people might try and tell you we have rules, we don't". If Kurt wants to try that line of argument with experienced users that's fine but Wikipedia is a bewilding place and I'm concerned that suggesting such a stance to novice users might cause all sorts of wikidrama and problems for the new user. --87.112.5.130 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I love it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

+me. That said, a link to WP:IAR in there would be nice, so as to not confuse a newcomer in the way the IP alludes to. But no, it's not a bad template...it's describing reality, after all. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As insane as some of Kurt's other proposal's have been (i.e. renamming the term "administrator" to "servant") I see nothing wrong with the message in this template, in any case it notes WP:IAR. The empty "power hunger" opposes are better discussed in WP:RFA, its not like that's going to stop him from thinking that anyways. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The message is great. The IP's been hit for block evasion. east.718 at 11:34, April 25, 2008

It's a good message (and admins should be called servants, a janitor is a servant). DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I would strongly suggest that you not address any janitorial or custodial employees you may encounter as "servants". MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it describes reality. Most situations are, fortunately, decided by policy rather than IAR, and the template clearly implies otherwise. I consider the present wording an encouragement to disruptive editing. Possibly a modified wording would retain the reality that nothing is actually totally definitive. But I agree the appropriate action is not here, but at MfD or TfD. DGG (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be one of the individuals who would have benefited from this message when you first started editing Wikipedia. The fact is, what I am saying is correct; anyone who has been around before 2006 or so understands this. There has been a trend over the past couple of years of new users who never had this explained to them, and so they started to treat "policies" as, as someone else said elsewhere "rigid rules to be applied rigidly." You, unfortunately, appear to be one of these. What I'm doing is trying to stop this trend that has victimized you and countless others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG, personally (due to dispute resolution experience) I've probably had more trouble with people wikilawyering and almost being banned; so I've built up the opposite opinion, where I think it's actually more productive for new editors to ignore the rules and just learn from people correcting them where they go astray. But there is merit to either approach, I guess. (some people want to know all the rules before they start, which is kind of tricky on wikipedia atm...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While it may truthfully describe common practice, I have a problem with the wording, which is easily interpreted as "ignore all rules" if it fits you, not if it fits Wikipedia. However, Kurt has a point; The distinction between the core policies such as WP:COPY and WP:BLP, and other policies that merely govern content has faded. The core policies should include only those touching Foundation issues, legal subjects (WP:COPY, WP:BLP), editor conduct (WP:3RR, WP:NPA and the like) and administrative issues... all the other policies should be demoted to guidelines, as they only deal with content and is in constant state of flux. In other words: we shouldn't have "policies" whose implementations are open to discussion and changing consensus; Those should be guidelines. Policies should be reserved for matters where their implementations are not subject to discussion. Otherwise, the real policies become discussable as well. Just my thoughts... — Edokter • Talk • 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt's templates is good, but it needs links to some of the most basic, obvious policies. A link to the WP:5P would do it. (something along the lines of "If you do want to see what the most basic policies are, take a look here". Neıl ☎ 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ehh, "Five pillars" just reeks of pretentiousness, which is part of the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The trifecta or simplified ruleset are available as alternates, if you prefer them. Both have been used in new user templates before. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The simplified ruleset might take some dusting off. It's a wiki, feel free to edit. :-)

I have respectfully reverted the "resolved" template because I believe some further discussion is needed, either here or at another appropriate location. I have two concerns regarding this form of welcome template. The first, which is the more serious, is that this template omits much of the useful information found in the standard welcome templates. I am not referring so much to links to various "policies" and "rules," but to links that can be of immediate usefulness to newcomers, such as "How to create a page." Since the presence of one "welcome template" on a new user's page will generally prevent any others from being placed there, sensibly enough, I think this is a significant concern.

Second, I happen to agree with much of what Kurt Weber has said to the effect that the project is becoming too dominated by rules and policy, sometimes to the detriment of creativity or common sense. (Compare, Wikipedia talk:Pranking#Some thoughts for an example of such a situation.) {{Template:Welcome9}}, which I was using for awhile, may be an example of a standard template that risks overwhelming a new user with too many of both rules and resources. On the other hand, I fear that Kurt's form of welcome significantly exaggerates in the other direction, while confronting inexperienced users with an argument for one side of a wikipolitical or wikiphilosophical dispute. The practice of using new-user welcome messages for this purpose has been severely criticized (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming new users) and should not be engaged in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had made it clear by now that I'm a supporter of Karmafist and see nothing wrong with what he did. He did what had to be done to keep new users from having wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas. Usually someone's first impression of how something works on Wikipedia will be the one he sticks with, and it's awfully difficult to change his mind after that. So what method would work better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. So you advocate independent and critical thinking and resistance to indoctrination, and you act on this by trying to indoctrinate new users to your point of view before anyone else can? If you really believe that critical thinking and rational judgement are paramount, then why the need to carefully shepherd new users and keep them from being infected with "wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas"? The whole thing strikes me as a bit... contradictory. As to what method would work better, I find that the most effective way to be a positive influence on new users is to model the behavior you'd like to see more of. When I started here, I learned by example, not from what someone said in my welcome message or from the WP:TLA of the moment. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, doesn't this argument loose a little something after high school? It's somewhat akin to telling someone going on a fast, "so, you're going to stop eating things by eating nothing?", and punctuating it with a pointed snicker, lest they fail to acknowledge this clever use of irony. Unfortunately, it's a basic fact of human psychology that in order to be introduced to a new idea, one must be indoctrinated - otherwise the idea itself will be lost in a mess of gratutious Gestaltian qualifications and cross-idealogical pandering. In simpler terms (they're simple, so let's not attack the rather black-and-white nature of this analogy, nor the rather immature, gratutious heavy-handedness) - if I wish to share the notion that two plus two equals four, it's more useful to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two equals four" than to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two could equal anything. It could equal one, two, three, four, five, or six. Some would argue that it equals quatro, or quatre. There are people who might state that it equals five hundred and sixty seven, as well as people who would have no answer to the question. I kinda think that two plus two is four, but I'll AGF and agree to disagree". While Kurt's spreading an open-ended "why", rather than the simple falsifiable "what" in that analogy, it still amounts to him saying "two plus two is x", rather than boring everyone with long-winded open-endedness. If his idea is weaker than whatever the current status quo is, it'll flounder in the marketplace. If it's stronger, then it is, ipso facto, a better idea. There is no irony. There is no cabal. Four legs good. Two legs better. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know the history (karmafist and whatnot) but, I've had a quick go at trying to find a compromise wording. I'll place it on my talk page User talk:Jasynnash2#Welcome Template?.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the template as written. Although I agree with Kurt that what's best for the encyclopedia should be the fundamental, guiding rule, I am also of the opinion that we do need prescriptive rules laid down by the community, so that editors know what they can and can't do. The rule of law is a very important value, both in real life and on Wikipedia; if there are no formal rules, then those in power make up the rules as they go along, to the detriment of those without power. So while we should focus on what's best for Wikipedia, we should also encourage editors to follow the policies. Walton^One 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It could well be argued that the rule of law doesn't really do much to stop those in power from doing as they please - just imagine I wikilinked a bunch of recent political scandals there. =) --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the "Kurt welcome" in action here and the response was confused concern the user had done something wrong and stepped on a rule. I personally agree with a lot of what is in this message but I think it's too much for new people and basically agree with what Brad said above. Sarah 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Following up to Sarah's point, I went back and let the user know what was going on. So far I've had more responses when I use {{subst:W-basic}} than {{subst:User:Kmweber/Welcome template}} ~~~~, but I haven't really done enough of either to get any sensible numbers. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry

I checked the Chris is my name (talk · contribs) account, blocked as a troll, with CheckUser, and found that it was operated by Shapiros10 (talk · contribs), who was mentioned by the sockpuppet ("this Shapiros10 person went for an RfA the day after he graduated from adoption. This is stupid that we let them edit!"). Don't ask me why he would use a sock to insult himself, but upon checking, I have found a number of other socks. A couple used for odd trolling related to user "adoption," a project which Shapiros seems to be very involved in, including MadMan3, PA3296. Others are just general trolls/vandals: The Change is Coming..., Le Noob, Vengaboys Rock!, F Yo Mama, Kambula, The Old Hat Restaurant. Other socks are also Stjimmy61892 (which he welcomed), Iroc555, and Goggreen. I haven't blocked any of these myself, but I recommend that an administrator consider taking action. Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disappointing. My interaction with Shapiros10 was okay. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith, I think it might be friends or family of the user who could be the socks. But for some reason this case reminds me of User:Green Kirby, in which his dad got on here and did several things (I can't remember though). During that case, User:Green Kirby was blocked for his dad getting on his account and saying bad things. Kirby contested it, but was denied because it was done on his account. I guess it is kind of the same thing as in just different people at the same IP. But still, we aren't certain that there are even other people at all. Well anywho just a hunch and 2 cents that helped with nothing. :D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm upset about this as well. He seemed to be a good editor! Are all the accounts going to be blocked... just coz some of them aren't right now. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a stern warning to User:Shapiros10 (I don't think a block would be productive), and didn't block the account that was tagged as being an alternate account. I only blocked the sleepers, and the accounts that either trolled when the rays crossed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derogatory comments in apparent contravention of an Arbcomm ruling

User:Giano II has responded to a request to discuss the addition made to an article page with this: here and here. The summary of the Arbcomm ruling is found on his user page: User:Giano II, along with the user's angry response. Ongoing discussion is here. The user has already receved two periods of blocking subsequent to the arbcomm ruling for incivility, and I view his comments (supplied above) to be completely unjustified, probably offensive, and not in keeping with fostering the idea of us all working together because it is inflammatory. In fact, I fail to see any advantage for making such comments except perhaps, in the light of the comments in response to the ruling on the user page, to taunt or otherwise push the boundaries of the decision. Can someone look into this? It is now not just about incivility, because of the arbcomm ruling, and so I thought a message here would be appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I'm not going to block Giano for trying to stop the march of the hateful infobox. His comments don't appear to have been particularly rude anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not about the infobox, no matter what your personal opinion is about them. It is about him characterizing those who question the fact that it sould never be included as having the intelligence of gnats and being of lower intelligence than him and his supporters. You do not concede that this contarvenes a number of wikipedia guidelines about behaviour of editors, especially in the light of the arbcomm ruling?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it does but a) Giano was talking in general terms and b) he's right. Infoboxes are vile. People need to stop poking Giano with the ArbCom stick. On this occasion it is not justified to do so. Occasionally he's rude for no good reason - block him then. Not now. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations were given to you at length by multiple editors both on the talk page of the article and at WP:CHESH - it is you who continues to bang this drum. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this comment contains claims that are not true. The issues remain open for quite legitimate reasons, and people are just asking for convincing reasons which do not disparage them or use demonstrably fallacious arguments (such as some of the ones you used) to advance their position.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are struggling to read correctly - where does Giano say that the "those" Giano refers to are those asking for the explanations - its clearly a statement about general readers. Please wind your neck in Stretch, take 5 and read it again - are you sure you've not misunderstood? We're all human after all.--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between incivility and a biting turn of phrase. We don't want boring users making anodyne conversation -- people are allowed to have personality! I think you are over-reacting a tad here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I must have been unclear! I thought it was obvious that I was referring to your own comment that "explanations were given to you at length", and that it is me "that continues to bang this drum": I am not the only one to remain unconvinced, and the explanations that were given were hardly convincing at all. That is why the discussions are ongoing. The issue you mention at the end about whether I have misunderstood is a separate one to the claim you made which I was replying to at that point. I am sorry that you could not understand what I thought was clear.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An ArbCom ruling should not be used as a hammer in every little tiff, and his comment isn't directed at you or any other editor but a rather pungent speculation on what will best serve the readers. Certainly nothing that would merit a block. henrik•talk 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a sensible and possible answers (Sam Korn and henrik). I will dwell on them, but would welcome further reasoned answers (as yours are) that do not display prejudice based on personal preferences or which do not use demonstrably untrue statements.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a truly incivil comment? Because beleive me I can furnish you with one if you want. In the meantime go and talk to the Arbs - whose intention it was that people like you should be popping out of the woodwork every five minutes over every trivial matter. They may have to time to waste, I do not. Giano (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Seemingly derogatory comments? What's next, "Possibly irritating positions implicit?" I know that I have promised to write it out at length, but the short version we need to keep in mind is that civilization and community exist only when there is speech that acts in defense, and this can always be understood, by the one pushing in, as offense. "Let's put a box on! Let's put a tag on!" These are not new arguments, and yet we're having to go through them every couple of weeks as new groups set up as "Project Houses with Gables," a split from "Project Houses," which split from "Project Buildings" -- and almost always over some formatting issue or another. Each group forgets, gradually, if it ever knew, that format is never a law, that consensus is the rule, that no one should be coming along to say, "Your article is in violation of WP:MYPROJECT guidelines, so I get to redesign it," because that's simply one person vs. another saying "mine." Geogre (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Worse still, Giano is very obviously right - we can't have that, can we? Style must in every case beat substance on today's Wikipedia. If people did not go around enforcing style guidelines, they'd have to write articles or something. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do wish we would have a page (or we probably have twenty) for people wanting to join or set up projects that would warn them that projects, like everything else on Wikipedia, are volunteer efforts. By joining, a person is agreeing with the assumption that there should be a uniformity of articles on a given subject. The old reason for projects, and often still the stated reason, is "to be sure that our articles on X are well done," but we rarely need projects for that. We need only a "here is a portal page" for that. When we get projects, we get "solitary look." My point is not to bash the projects, but to remind them that when people don't join, they may be very politely saying that they don't agree with the basic goal. The non-members vastly outnumber the members of any project, and the projectors need to be humble before that fact. Geogre (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted page

I once had a page User:Jaeger123/Maya Caldendar when I was activly contributing. I'm going inactive now, but could an admin please email the contents of the page?--Jaeger123 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about this, I accidentaly posted here instead of the administrators noticeboard.--Jaeger123 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London

The discussion is not substantial for the conclusion there is a wide consensus to remove the image here. How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SynergeticMaggot

SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) a non-admin has twice closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication early[1][2]. The first closure was within three hours of the nomination. This issue was raised at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, from which I reopened the AfD as the closure wasnt within the criteria of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. After the reopening A number of users have explained that it doesnt meet Speedy Keep nor did it meet the requirements of WP:SNOW, yet SynergeticMaggot has again closed the afd this time citing Speedy Keep, Snow and WP:IAR.

SynergeticMaggot first action when logging on was to state he wanted nothing more to do with the discussion[3] his next edit was to closed the AfD[4] The second closure is well outside acceptable etiquette bordering on disruption to prove a point, rather than enter revert war over reopening the afd I like an uninvolved admin to review SynergeticMaggot's actions. Gnangarra 09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't endorse the edit-warring (after being reverted once, he should have left it alone), but a speedy close was correct as there's no way it was getting deleted. I re-closed it as such. I have asked him not to edit-war on AFD closures ever again (if someone reverts your closure, don't edit war over it, admin or not - discuss discuss discuss). Neıl ☎ 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did discuss it, and I reclosed appropriately (I look at it as fixing my mistakes). No intention of edit warring. For the purpose of disclosure, see here (but be mindful its a work in progress). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The bigger issue here, IMHO, is not this one AfD, but rather that this user is walking all over WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Somehow, he seems to find these miraculous AfDs, where a group of editors all swoop in and vote and vote to keep, and then he closes it, and the AfD is listed for less than a day. I admit, it seems the Nonviolent Communication AfD was facing WP:SNOW, but standard practice and indeed common courtesy dictate that an AfD that is nominated in good faith and not withdrawn remain open at least one day. When I and others broached the subject on his talk page, and at Wikiquette alerts, we were met with nothing but derision and dismissive, even insulting arguments. The other issue I mentioned was not marking his closures as non-admin, and SynergeticMaggot's solution to this is to add the letters "NAC" to his closes, without linking it. A new or inexperienced user would still not know what is going on. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zaphod above has a point. A non-admin should make sure that the closing was clearly and explicitly a non-admin closing. "NAC" doesn't quite fit the bill. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the latest example, and I would add, in light of this page that this may all be in order to make a WP:POINT. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all - while edit warring, back and forth open and closures shouldn't have been done, SynergeticMaggot is simply WP:IAR for the sake of Wikipedia. Careful with WP:POINT as it is reserved for users who are deliberately attempting to disrupt wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but neither IAR nor SNOW came into this conversation until I brought them up, then he started adding them as rationales to the same types of hasty closures. I just don't see what the rush is, why he feels a debate has to be closed in three or four hours instead of letting it run at least a day. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "non-admin closure" thing is asinine anyway. If someone has concerns over the closure of a deletion debate, they can discuss it with the closer, admin or not. Either the debate was closed in accordance with consensus, or it wasn’t. A "non-admin closure" label just encourages straw-graspers to revert the close for no particular reason at all. Indeed, the only users who should be reverting non-admin closures are administrators. ➪HiDrNick! 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Beeblebrow: what you have to realize is the after the AfD was reopened, MangoJuice voiced a keep response, thus meeting a criteria for SNOW located on the WP:NAC page. I'd like to specify that I don't need another editor to bring SNOW up to use it closing an AfD. Agreed, I don't like non admin's overturning AfD closures either, but it happens. Maybe a change here and there needs to take place. DRV is a better venue though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, what concerns me is not just this one closure, hence why it is not a DRV. What concerns me is that you make a habbit out of closing AfD debates that have been open less than a day. Now, I am all for improving articles, and I know that sometimes an article has the very problem that made it a candidate for AfD fixed while it is there. For the record, I think that is great. I would much rather see an article get turned into useful content than for it to be deleted. That having been said, if the article really has been improved, the improvements will speak for themselves and the "Keep" votes will come rolling in, not just from those who made the improvements, but from other users who see the improved article, and from those, like myself, who re-visit AfD's they've voted in to see if anything has changed. Leaving the AfD open for scrutiny a little longer gives other editors a chance to see the changes for themselves and evaluate the new, improved article, and can end up actually strengthening the argument for keeping. Rushing to a speedy keep when the very narrow criteria at WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been met makes it look like you are trying to avoid scrutiny and just railroad through a quick keep. That's all I've been trying to say all along and I hope you understand my point. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand. Really I do. I just disagree with you. Once 5-6 editors have suggested keeping, its a snowball. And after reviewing the history, the editors, and contributors and the opinions, its closed (there really is no difference between 6 keeps and 16, a keep is a keep). Speedy keep just denotes its closed sooner than the 5 day period. You don't have to agree with me at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to go here, but you are Wikilawyering. That is, switching your defenses around when they don't seem to work, citing something when it suits your purposes, then discarding it when it does not work anymore, and trying to use the letter of guidelines like WP:SNOW and WP:SPEEDYKEEP but not the spirit of them. I don't have issue with rescuing an article from deletion, but, if the "Keep" votes mostly come from the rescuers themselves, that needs to be taken into account when closing. You still have not explained what the big hurry is to close, why you feel these AfD debates have to be shut down in a few hours, and, since you have now added WP:IAR to your reasoning, how your actions help the project more than the accepted practice of leaving it open at least a day. Also, is anyone else still reading this? I had hoped we would get a little more input from uninvolved parties here, since the two of us have gone around and around with this and seem to be at an impasse. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still reading this. I've worked (I assume rather well, SM, correct me if I'm wrong), with SynMag in the past. My question, Beeblbrox, is a simple one. Do you have a problem with the closes, or with the timing of the closes? Have any of the closes that you've witnessed specifically been ultimately wrong? I'm not saying yes or no here, leaving that to you. However, what I will ask, SynMag, since this seems to be a problem for at least one of your co-editors, and since it has come up before in your NACs, would you be willing to self-monitor yourself to not close anything with a date stamp that is the same day as your close? (regardless of SNOW, regardless of IAR?) As an admin, and as a regular Afd closer myself, I very rarely if ever close anything on the same datestamp that it is opened, as it can be seen (regardless of the # of !voters), as a bite of a slap to the nominator (again, right or wrong, at least one editor felt an article needed to be discussed). Would you agree to not close on the same datestamp going forward so this can all be put behind you/beeblbrox, and ANI? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no reason why SynergeticMaggot is so eager to be closing these AfDs so quickly. Since his closes have only been getting him in trouble, and there is no harm in leaving an AfD open for more than a day (besides cases of speedy deletions or BLPs), I'd say he should seriously restrict his AfD closes altogether, including completely refraining from closing same-days. GlassCobra 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? :-) If it is, thank you for agreeing with me. If it isn't, then what you said GlassCobra, is what I meant. I'm hoping it will come down to a "self-restriction" instead of a "community restriction". I've seen SM make some very good closes, in fact, I would say the majority of the time, his closes are valid, timely, and accurate. But there has been drama, so I'm hoping he is still reading this and would agree to slow it down. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you both for your remarks. Keeper, if I understand the intent of your question correctly, you are maybe asking if in retrospect they aren't bad closes so what is the harm and maybe we should IAR and let it go? Maybe you have a point there, we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not to yell at each other, and, to be honest, I hate spending my wiki-time quibbling over little details instead of editing articles. Having said that, yes, I do have a problem with the timing of the closes, and not just because one of them was at "my" AfD, but because AfDs, unless they are begun in bad faith, deserve a reasonable period of time for comment by a variety of editors before closure. If we go way back here to where this whole thing started, it seems clear that what I mentioned above about Wikilawyering holds true. This seems to me to be more a matter of civility and honesty when dealing with fellow editors, as opposed to the specifics of these AfDs. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil response, Beeb. The intent of my question was to basically ask if this could be solved/resolved outside of ANI. I'm hoping SM will reply here/your talk/my talk with a self-imposed (and really, not just him, but any AFD closer), "wait at least one day, even if it's gonna be SNOWed". Hoping for a positive response from SM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• If anything, this kind of thing should be encouraged, not discouraged. There's far too much stuff sent to AfD that shouldn't be at AfD, and when it becomes as obvious as this that it's going nowhere fast, it should get closed so actual, contentious AfDs can be focused on. The only thing AfDs like the mentioned one do is waste time. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Woot. I had no idea this thread was still active. I'm not going to stop closing AfD's anytime soon. Celarnor says it rather nicely here and is my intention for my faster closes.

To Beeb.: I'm done speaking to you here. I would have preferred you addressing this more on my talk page.

To Keeper: Consensus comes first. If its reached in 3 minutes, 50 minutes, or 5 days, it exists and is applicable. So theres not really a chance of slowing down although I will give it more thought before doing it, since showing up on AN/ANI every now and then is getting repetitive and is usually unnecessary. So I'd only be doing it to save the space for actual incidents that warrant attention. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll call this resolved, then SM. At this point, there's no evident need in keeping an ANI thread open. My talk page is always open if you need a second opinion on a potential close that you're about to perform. A second opinion many times will avoid an ANI post. Happy editing to all, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tendentious reinsertions at 'Gakhars' & 'Kayanis (Tribe)‎'

Over at Gakhars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Kayanis (Tribe) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), editor Amirkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) keeps inserting the same family-member directory over and over again, even though now some 6 other editors (5 established, 1 new) keep removing them and have noted their concerns on talk (to which Amirkayani has not responded).

He was on 3RR parole earlier today, but does not appear to have learned anything from it, since "new editor" Adilkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) picked up right where Amirkayani left off (the latter has since resumed the rv cycle). The former have no other contributions worth mentioning, and the latter has only reverts/reinstatements of the aforementioned lists.

Question: whats the most efficient way to put an end to this sorry tale? RCU/Code E for block evasion + 3RRV + 3RRV + ... ? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the "older" account's block for a week. The newer one I'm not 100% sure of.-Wafulz (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extension. As for the "new" editor, see Adilkayani edit history (note the 07:31 UTC reinstatements of your rvs of yesterday). IMO, it is a bit strange that Adilkayani only pops up while Amirkayani was/is blocked, and then has done nothing but continue his twin's rv war. *sigh* -- Fullstop (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ps: I've filed an RFCU to ascertain which route to take (block-on-sight for puppetry, or block-on-sight for disruption, or rfc->arb)

[edit] Review of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey

A shared interest in homeopathy, similar IPs, and some geographic evidence connects User:Happening, with the banned user and puppetmaster User:Dr.Jhingaadey. Review and action (block/dismiss) by an uninvolved admin please. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move this to WP:SSP, Tim? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented at the checkuser request, I've gone ahead and blocked Happening (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs). Briefly, the evidence is overlapping subject matter, congruent IP's with a somewhat suspicious pre-emptive excuse on the checkuser page, geographical similarity, and shared editing tics and habits. Even in a best-case scenario, it would be hard to make the case that we need more single-purpose agenda accounts at homeopathy, but this looks to me like a fairly clear-cut sockpuppet. Review welcome. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, your analysis seems spot-on to me. It was obvious, particularly after this edit and the unconvincing explanations why his IP addresses and activities were practically identical to the banned user. Even if we're wrong (and I highly doubt it), Happening was being disruptive and really helping nothing on the page. — Scientizzle 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions

Could others please comment on two aspects of COI issues relating to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and Vereniging Basisinkomen.

• Firstly on Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others (and lesser extent Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen#COI) - does that consitute fair and appropriate view to block this editor, notwithstanding his decission to not listen to that discussion & rejection that COI should restrict his editing involvement ?
• Secondly, rather than impose a block with a warning as COI/N seemed to propose, I elected to merely notify him of being community partially banned on just that one article. Was my interpretation and actions appropriate ?

Guido den Broeder responded with RFAR 3.1 Request to lift article ban. It seems pointless to duplicate the background details, links and references that are set out there, so please review those comments. (I note Robotje's comment of his mutiple filing of RFAR at Dutch Wikipedia, but I suspect that such actions elsewhere are immaterial here in English Wikipedia).

So does Guido den Broeder have COI issues sufficient to warrant action or a specific level of warning (as per WP:COI/N) and were my actions appropriate or handled as well as I could/should have? David Ruben ^Talk 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your reference to perceived events on nl:Wikipedia. Such a mention only serves to put me in a bad light since I cannot comment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

@David Ruben: Can you provide some diffs of disruptive editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the COI/N procedure mentioned by David relates to a completely different article, Melody Amber chess tournament. Since the COI/N, consensus has emerged on the talk page of that article that supports my stance, and opposing user has been warned for stalking. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so, and further illustration of your failure to accept COI on this article and viewpoints of multiple other editors/admins. That COI/N's first posting was by Aecis on 16 April who stated "The user has also created articles for [[Vereniging Basisinkomen|an organisation he's the treasurer of]] ...", and on 17 April points out specific edits to that article's talk page. Gordonofcartoon observed on 18 April "The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view." WLU's posting on 20th included "See [[User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Vereniging_Basisinkomen]] in my archive,". On 23rd WLU stated "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vereniging_Basisinkomen&action=history To whit]. Revert-warring isn't a good sign, ever" and EdJohnston posted "I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vereniging_Basisinkomen&diff=207632246&oldid=207611173 yet again removing the COI tag]". So the COI/N made repeated reference to this article (as well as some other articles in passing). David Ruben ^Talk 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a level of disruption that would warrant a ban. The user should be advised to exercise caution, and most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others. After all, it should be very easy to check the article and see if there is material that should not included, or vice-versa, COI, or not COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. I believe that I am exercising caution, and said checking is presently taking place by cooperative co-editors. David is welcome to keep looking over my shoulder if he still has concerns. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, Guido. As an editor that has a COI myself in some articles, my advice is this: you need to edit not only with extreme caution, if you edit at all, but you should do it so cleanly that it will squeak, so that anyone checking your contributions could not make a case that you are disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Hi, I come to this page from Vereniging Basisinkomen which is still on my watchlist because I was following it in a recent Afd. In my view the removal of the COI notice made some sense. The article itself was cleaned up and to my knowledge all the COI material and other coattrack stuff has been removed(at least that was my impression). If I hadn't seen the discussion on the talk page I would of removed the COI notice myself. Going back a bit further there have been a number of editors posts I wouldn't say has been WP:CIVIL towards 'Guido den Broeder', perhaps it is just because there is a difference of opinion on the subject(clearly the case) but I think many of the posts are personal, which is quite inappropriate and gets nowhere to making the article a better article. To that end I have no understanding why 'Guido den Broeder' has been banned from that page. He(Guido den Broeder) seems to be the victim of the situation, and so the recent ban actions sense questionable to me at this time. SunCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GDB is, in my experience, a very difficult person to interact with - stubborn, with an extremely dubious understanding of policies/guidelines, a propensity for irritating others, coatrack articles and wikilawyering. I really don't think it's a bad thing that he be banned from editing pages he has a COI in though that applies to anyone on wikipedia and is common sense to me. I'm guessing he'll be quite hands off now for the extant, but I'm guessing this situation will repeat. I don't think a block is warranted, I do think mentoring would be helpful. It can be hard to be civil to GDB because he does get to be irritating. Witness this discussion on the notability of articles User_talk:WLU/Archive_3#Notability - if he's right, then I've been wrong for a very, very long time. I foresee future problems, though right now I don't think there's anything actionable beyond what's already covered by policy (i.e. don't edit articles you have a conflict of interest in).

Regards VBI, GDB should have started a discussion about removing the COI tag. He should not have removed it himself. That's the essence of COI - you're not neutral, and even if your actions result in a neutral page or edit it's still not your call. There's a ton of options for suggesting edits on pages that are not directly editable, so I don't see much excuse. WLU (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You may, indeed, have been wrong with your interpretation of notability for a very, very long time. Yes, it is irritating if someone shows up saying that, but it's a lot more irritating if someone does not respond to arguments yet maintains that the other can't possibly be right and should therefore be considered a troublemaker. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heliac blocked

Heliac (talk · contribs) seems to be on a spree of abusing various Wikipedia processes. I warned him about a run of harmless names he posted to UAA, and then I thought to check the archives.

Turns out he's had these warnings before, multiple times. He's also been warned for biting newbies, and he's just had his rollback powers removed because he used it to revert people he disagreed with... such as people saying he shouldn't have rollback powers. He's now reverting randomly using TWINKLE. He's been warned about basically all of these things, including a large number of warnings for disruptive reverting.

After seeing the sheer enormity of the list of warnings he's removed, I blocked him for 24 hours. I have a feeling this won't be sufficient.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be denied twinkle too, at the very least--Jac16888 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to deny someone TWINKLE? That would be a new one on me. Or would this be a sort of "topic ban" against using TWINKLE? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. you simply blank their monobook, then protect it for as long as you want to deny them tw.Admittedly, it will only work after they close their browser. Also, i find the amount of times heliac's talk page has gotten comment's from ips telling him they weren't vandalising quite disturbing, several of these seem like legit edits were reverted--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think he's got TWINKLE turned on through Gadgets, not through monobook.js.

And yeah, the things he's been reverting seem to be a mix of vandalism and legitimate edits. I'm looking at his recent contributions, and cleaning it up is going to be a bit of a daunting task. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. You're right about that. I'll help out where I can with that task. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No twinkle in his monobook, so yeah, either ask him to move it there and disable the gadget, or just keep blocking in such cases, until he learns. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, forgot about the gadget way of using it. May not be possible then. shame. By the way, Heliac is requesting unblock.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[5], is very odd.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's conceivable that Heliac is going to be a constructive user at all, I think we're going to need to topic-ban him from making edits with automated tools for a while. Does this sound like a good idea? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support ban on using automated tools to edit. Additionally, would it be possible to add a Twinkle user blacklist, so anyone on that blacklist could use Twinkle, no matter where it was installed (monobook or gadgets)? Because that might be a useful thing to have. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since protecting the monobook is no longer an option, in this particular case, I'd support quickly escalating blocks if Twinkle is reused for some period of time (1-3 months? due to previous disruption, I'd say 3 months) In the more general case of Twinkle misuse, I think Twinkle should be removed from Gadgets. It's sooooo silly to argue about rollback when we give Twinkle to anyone who can check a box, and blocking (rather than taking the toy away) is now the only option. Where does one suggest changes to the Gadgets lineup? --barneca (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keeper76 (admin): Uncivil, expletive-laced language, with several personal attacks

[edit] "Hearing from Lawyers"

A legal threat can be found here. APK ^{yada yada} 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Blocked indefinitely until such time that it is retracted. seicer | talk | contribs 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His block log is empty? APK ^{yada yada} 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a stupid mistake on my part. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to block immediately when someone makes a remark of this sort? If so, what's the point of having the uw-nlt warning template? I placed that on Ryanborgz's talk page, and then Seicer immediately followed it with the block tag. Aleta ^Sing 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it also shows that you can't just throw legal threats around willy-nilly and expect Wikipedia to bend to your demands. If we did, one word: chaos. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read NLT. I think where we are differing in interpretation is the word "may": "You may be blocked", not "will". Isn't it reasonable to give a chance for retraction before blocking? (Yes, I know they can retract and request unblocking, but it seems more peaceful to give a chance first.) Note, I am not suggesting we kowtow to the legal threats at all. Aleta ^Sing 15:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is such a simple policy, and I don't know why people want to make things complicated. Make a legal threat → get blocked. Retract your legal threat → get unblocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about trying not to escalate already nasty situations. (If you're making a LT, it's already gotten nasty.) I'm suggesting making a warning, i.e. uw-nlt, to allow the person a chance to retract before blocking. If the person refuses, then go ahead and block. If you just block without warning, you can make a mad person even madder. I reiterate my question - if a block is automatic, then what is the point of tl:uw-nlt? Aleta ^Sing 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This meta-conversation, while a perfectly valid difference of opinion, is perhaps better suited to Wikipedia talk:No legal threats? Just an idea to clear up ANI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I won't say any more about this here. Aleta ^Sing 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to reignite discussion, you may also want to note, Aleta, that users threatening litigation are not supposed to edit while the threats are outstanding anyway. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Quite honestly, a look at the editor's history suggests that it's rather on the vandalistic side anyhow. This looks to be a good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment and attempts to reveal personal information

Last week a user attempted to reveal on Wikipedia what that user thought was my name and home address. After that user was banned, new user User:91.64.2.200 has now taken to using what that user believes to be my real name and has gone about reverting my edits using that proper name in the edit summaries. Now the new user User:Everybody Hates Bradley has taken up a similar cause. Could someone please provide some assistance in stopping this harassment? Thank you for your help. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The second user I mentioned above is currently attempting to reveal an email address, phone number, and home address that it believes to belong to me. I would really appreciate any help on this in removing those edit summaries. Thank you. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent in a request to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. (Actually, non-administrators can do that too.) I also got rid of a few pieces of identifying information by deleting and recreating a few articles. That should help out until the oversight people take care of everything. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing comes up at Special:Contributions/Everybody_Hates_Bradley. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither does Special:DeletedContributions/Everybody_Hates_Bradley. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still see them, but at least non-administrators can't make sense of the list. I also noticed that 91.64.2.200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 85.181.169.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) are Tor nodes, so they're now blocked. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?

HooperBandP (talk · contribs)

• Talk:Global warming
• Talk:Theodor Landscheidt‎
• Talk:Global cooling
• Talk:Timothy F. Ball
• Talk:Fred Singer
• Talk:J. Scott Armstrong
• Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We aren't canvassing for either side but we are letting them know (which is required by Arbcomm to inform all parties). It was easier to put it on the talk pages were multiple users had has a problem with him then it was on each individual talk page. Hooper (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles need informing? see WP:CANVASS. --Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, it was just an easier step in what will be a very sensitive case. If it is wrong, I just want to acknowledge why we did it and it was not just to get participation as much as to try to conform to the Arbcomm rules. It may have been best to go to each individual users talk page, was just trying to save time. But I do understand what you're saying. Hooper (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see enough of these yet to call it canvassing, however I do have some worries about the notion of building an arbcom RfAR project in a user sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres no harm in drafting RFCs, complex RFCUs, or RFARs in a user page, is there? I've done the same myself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm indeed... What is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

(EC) The posts on the talk pages were more or less neutral, but an article talk page isn't really an acceptable forum for this sort of post, even if the users involved would see it (see WP:TPG). An article's talk page should only be used for discussing the article. While it might be tedious to individually inform each user on their own talk page, that should be the course of action that is taken :) Cheers! ( arky ) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Understandable and makes perfect sense with the articles. If we come across anymore users that may need to be informed, we'll make sure to do it directly on their talk page. On Gwen Gale's comment, The sandbox is more or less to allow all the users involved the proper time (including the party being requested for Arbcomm, who has been informed of it) to compile the massive and spreadout different reports that they will have, so that Arbcomm's time won't be waisted. With it being an administrator, we're just trying to be as clear as possible. I'd prefer another way if someone had a suggestion. Hooper (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My main worry would be that comments there might be swayed by a lack of input from some (very unintentionally) excluded editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Campainging through the use of the article talk pages seems quite inappropriate, and I would assume these are the articles that you have disputes with this user? This is oughtright WP:CANVASSing for arbcom participants.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On each of those talk pages, there are users who both support the user in question and users who do not support him. I also recently made sure to inform, on his user talk page, a user who highly supports the user. Trying our best to get as fair a response as possible. Hooper (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. The draft RFAR is plainly frivolous and has no chance of being accepted. Best ignore it and get back to our regularly scheduled whatever-it-is-we-are-doing-here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin can be plainly proven to have went against admin policy and it is "frivolous". That is an interesting opinion indeed. Hooper (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is considered frivolous because Jimbo and William know each other personally. My guess is that Arbcom, who Jimbo has the final say of who stays on or goes, will not want to ruffle the feathers of a friend of Jimbo's. Not even if he has violated the blocking policy twice this month, and the protection policy once. I worry if the laundry list posted to the RfC pans out, that this can end up getting news coverage if Jimbo steps in. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know William M. Connelly personally, actually. I do know dozens and dozens of admins, users, etc., personally, but not Professor Connelly. We have exchanged some email correspondence, none of it of a personal nature, something that I do with hundreds of people. Even if I did know him personally, though, I think we can all be quite confident that the ArbCom can judge matters independently. I think the ArbCom members themselves will testify 100% that they will vote for what they see as the truth, without regard to how I might feel about it. And I think they will also testify that I have never done anything to lead anyone to believe I would overturn a decision of theirs based on a friendship. (Though I must repeat that, in this case, I don't happen to know Professor Connelly, though I do admire his work from a distance as many people do.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jimbo will stick his head out and defend any blatant admin misconduct simply on the basis of his acquaintance with the offender. To do show would greatly affect and offend the volunteers, and moreover, I believe Jimbo to be a man of integrity. For example, I recall the incident of a personal friend of Jimbo's, having been hired, and served on arbom, etc. who was exposed as lying about his credentials. Jimbo, despite his friendship with the person abusing the communities trust, did not take his side; rather he was asked to step down. Likewise, there is no reason to think that William's abuse of the tools as a violation of the communities trust, will cause Jimbo would intervene in defenses someone if the facts show the person is guilty of the offense. I do not believe WP suffers from such crony corruption, as previous examples prove. Its essential that we all follow the "rule of law" here. The volunteer nature of this project demands these basic standards, along with transparency, and other appropriate due process norms in keeping with Wikipeda ethos.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"...William's abuse of the tools...." This has not been proved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said and I apologize for my statement. I do not think that Jimbo will read it, however I do believe you to be correct and I should have assumed better. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, every time I see a supposed "invincible" but absusive admin who violate WP core policies rebuked by the community, and stripped of those tools, I gain confidence and respect in the project. I'm thinking about Mongo, for an example. It should be a warning to heed for all admins not to let their feelings of being invaunerable and above the law, get to their head. To do so requires a reality check that will confirm the confidence we give the process.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know this. I placed a note on his (Jimbo's) talk page, though he probably has assistants or something. Even if he supports William, he should be aware if they are acquanted and that acquaintance could tip the debate into POV either way. But this discussion is probably not warranted here. Hooper (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have assistants to read my Wikipedia talk page. The media may like to pretend I am some kind of celebrity, but actually I am just a Wikipedian like you. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notices from the talk pages. Talk pages aren't for gathering evidence against other users - they're there to help build articles.-Wafulz (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not any misconduct on the part of WMC, and should this frivolous arbcom case be accepted, I shall provide evidence that this is the case. Jtrainor (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will not be alone by any means. AN/I has already reviewed and taken this view. But I doubt Arbcom will take it on since it isn't too hard to see through it. --BozMo talk 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire situation is a phenomenon that has been remarked on before here, with the following sequence of events:

1. Admin arrives and tries to clean up bad article 2. People with WP:OWN issues/POV warriors/etc edit war 3. Said people are blocked or otherwise sanctioned 4. Said people complain about an "involved admin" misusing his tools.

As I have stated before, people who attempt to game the system in such a fashion should be severely punished. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is how you two feel you are more than welcome to sign on and show your side, whether on the current sandbox or when it gets sent to the Committee. All views are welcome. However, this discussion has steered away from the reason we are on this page, and continued discussions here should be discouraged so we aren't taking up time of those who maintain this noticeboard. You are more than welcome to voice any opinions or views on the sandbox talk page. Hooper (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching that sandbox in any way-- I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than harrassment directed at WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wan to review WP:AGF. Your comments here violate this. Its not an option, its a requirement. Instead of focusing on motivations of editors, we should simply note the facts. The facts speak plaining enough, and those will stand out for evaluation by arbCom.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that page is it is no official attempt to gather opinions. Opinions have already been given at AN/I, with a broad consensus of Admins (for whose opinion AN/I exists) supported the view that WMC had broken no rule. Until (and if) Arbcom agree to re-open what looks like a closed case I don't see much point in wasting our time. On top of which a correctly formulated RfC would seem to be a prerequisite for Arbcom accepting the case and is missing. Whether an RfC should be openned about the conduct of the accusers is another issue but I don't see much point--BozMo talk 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no consensus that supported the view you cite. In fact several pointed out that what William did was a misuse of admin tools, or proper protocol with its use given his involvement in the dispute. I'm not sure how you can say you don't see much point, unless you think selectively only blocking editors with whom you are in an active edit war with, and placing protection and then editing through the protection, and as well as generally not respecting the consensus process--if all this is no big deal for an admin to comport himself, then, and only then, can I understand your point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Connelley is one of the most incivil admins we have and this arbcom request is long overdue. Asking people in the global warming walled garden to participate was proper. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "walled garden" which contains a featured article, and has been favorably written up in the mainstream press where it was described by an independent academic as "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia"? ([6]) We could do with more such "walled gardens". MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this link. All of it. Spending a lot of my time reverting vandalism and other nonsense is really soul-destroying. It makes me wonder why I should bother. It makes me wonder whether the open model is appropriate. Reviews like this renew my confidence. Whether I am physically able to continue doing this remains to be seen. But it's hopeful, against all the ludicrous and mostly unjustified criticism we attract. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only semi-online so this will be brief. My personal opinion is that asking for input on arbcomm cases on the pages where the conflicts have occurred is quite appropriate. My thanks to the people who have been kind above. But I'm not a professor :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd

Because such actions have a history of being contentious, I am noting here that I summarily closed this with a deletion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, after learning about the issue at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have actualy done your job per the rules, but actually failed because a simple google search shows that, far from the single piece of gossip shown in the google cache of his previous wp bio, there are at least 4 other notable reasons for his documentation, not least invlolvement in one of the biggest police cases in the UK in the 2000's MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick, the close doesn't stop a rewrite that is NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who initiated the AfD, and added a report at WP:BLPN on the same subject out of fear that the article was going to be kept though it was a blatant BLP violation, I strongly support these actions. I have no problem with a good, neutral article be written. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami

During the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami, user User:Linlikai removed my recorded "Delete" vote without my permission, here is the diff[7]. I have restored my vote and placed a comment about what happened at the AfD page. Subsequently, User: Melissagoethe placed the SPA tag on all my comments, here is the diff[8]. His placing of the SPA tag on my comments was reverted by User:KleenupKrew, here is the diff[9]. After that User: Melissagoethe restored the SPA tags on my comments and accused me of having removed them earlier (aven though they were removed by KleenupKrew) and accused me of having "practised hypocrisy", here is the diff[10]. An easy check of my contributions will show that I have been editing Wikipedia since Aug 2007 and have well over 500 edits on multiple topics, far from being an SPA. On the other hand both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai are obvious SPAs who made few or no edits outside the topic of this AfD.

I request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at this case and talk to both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai, and also remove the SPA tags placed on my comments in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look like socks to me.--Phoenix-wiki 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I did remove the SPA tags about User:Nsk92 as obvious vandalism, as a quick look confirmed that Nsk92 has a long and varied editing history. The three users arguing for "keep" on this article, User:Melissagoethe, User:Linlikai, and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY have made no edits outside the topic, and the latter two accounts were created today (probable sockpuppets). The article itself looks like a complete hoax and can probably be speedied unless somebody can provide credible sources this person actually exists. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a suspected sockpuppet case concerning these users. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Melissagoethe. TheMile (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the remaining SPA tags on User:Nsk92. Black Kite 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dear administrators, I refer to the article with great disappointment in the moral standards that I have been exposed to in my short while attempting to contribute to this community.

Firstly, I object to User:KleenupKrew for editing the article to skew it in his favor, repeatedly, especially in the practice of various tags, without mention. And further more, deleting parts of my edits without due mention. While he prides himself for "cleaning up", I beseech the administrators to look into cleaning up his choice of morals. User:Nsk92 has kindly looked up for his misdeed for me as proof. [11] He should be prevented from further malpractice of such. I cannot accept that he has harbored an agenda against me and refused to justify it with me - something which I'll be happy to be answerable to. I am in no knowledge of why he has chosen to align me with various other members whom I have no knowledge of via the SPA tag: please do a whois to validate that I am speaking the truth. In fact, why would I choose to leave my message in which I have answered to User:Nsk92's post yet remove his post by proxy? Please see the third reply.

Secondly, with regards to User:Nsk92. I do apologize for the matter that I have mistakenly placed him responsible for User:KleenupKrew's misdeed (see above). However, this does not free him from fault. He said, "...you have got some nerve accusing me of being an SPA. Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" I see not why he is implying that he has a certain superiority for being registered for less than a year longer than I have. Quantity does not imply quality. He used his 'contributions' as a premise, but upon a quick look, what time he had spent earlier here has not shown his standards to be any better. For example, see his repeated undoing of revisions at [12]. Here, it serves a point to question: he is quick to cite WP policies for his backing, but he has failed to mention one of particular poignancy for his case [13]. I see not why he is practising double standards on this matter. And for his information, the person in mention in my article does have a Friendster account which outstrips his term of presence as a registered user here: but I had fairly omitted that as a source for it cannot produce a proof with neutrality. She also has a set of notes as a TA at MIT on the OCW - dated back to Fall 2004, but I had chosen to omit that as it does not provide anything useful for my article. Does August 2007 mean anything? No. Absolutely nothing when it comes to merit.

Thirdly, I address User:TheMile. As seen [14], he had adopted a very lax set of standards in proving his point and inquiring on the matter. He has made passing remarks and fleeting attempts that would obviously not have generated a find of any relevance to my article: be it on his supposed status as a doctoral candidate (for which his candidacy and the truth of this claim I doubt) He also claimed that I had made logical fallacies in my good-willed responses where I clearly have not. I had also provided means of finding articles, kindly, for which he refused to, giving a generalization that everything should be in English as he wishes.

Fourthly, it disturbs me insofar that I have been accused of all matter of ethics pertaining to my integrity in this place, and where I have been falsely accused of creating multiple accounts, creating single-purpose accounts, creating this, creating that, everything on the grounds of surface value. In all, this place proved to be a disgrace: one where term of registration is equivocated as merit, one where hypocrisy is intertolerated between members of equal standing, and where double standards are practised in the misquotation of policies as tools to prove their points. These standards far deviate from that I have expected on an encyclopedia, one which I wished to contribute to. Thank you for showing me that this is a place where my ethics will degrade: for I will desist to condescend to these users' standards and comment further. I also hope that other new users get to see this: what they're getting themselves into. For these users, I recommend you to lay low for a 8 to 9 months, then you can start to act like User:Nsk92, claiming credit and merit where it is not deserved - just because you chose to register 8 to 9 months earlier.

I also accept the administrators' decision to request me to stop commenting on the AfD, which I see the rationale for. Melissagoethe (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not "claiming credit or merit" for anything, I am just claiming that your accusation of me being an WP:SPA is blatantly false, and my long and varied contribution history of editing on multiple topics is proof of that. Regarding "laying low" for 8-9 months, I did not do that either. I did not do much editing in October-November but I have been actively editing since January 2008, as a look through my contribution list proves. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You, describing your motive under a different light, do not hide what is unequivocally obvious in what was typed: "Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" Anyone with the slightest comprehension of the language can catch the nuances when you made it clear, "What about you??" Benefit of doubt COULD have been given if this wasn't there, and I would have sincerely apologized for that matter - BUT, it wasn't such. Furthermore, I did not mention laying low as something you have done, but I explicitly advise people who wish to add weight to their cause to follow your example of attributing merit to your time as a registered user if attitude of your kind is to be condoned. I did, however, state that a look through your contribution list shows up works that do not show the consistency deserving of someone with merit. Compare: I have been glad to revise my sources where discussed to meet the community's needs within my short list of contributions, yet you, on a quantitatively comparable extent (I refer to your contributions in August 2007) have perpetually undone revisions on a repeated basis. Technically speaking, you have indeed a single purpose account: and that seems to be grounded in perpetuating your ego (continually undoing revisions to an article in your favor, referring a matter as this to administrators as a major disruption on my case although I have been fully cooperative to listen and answer to constructive and unconstructive criticisms alike etc.) I also question the correctness of "single purpose account" for my case: I have just started my account - of course my first article contribution would appear as a single purpose: because I can't possibly have that many 'purposes' when I'm busily working on one single article. This brings me to question why user:KleenupKrew's false allegations, one which TO THIS POINT HE HAS NOT ADMITTED, were condoned while I, mistakingly, and acceptingly of my mistake, have to be lambasted. I demand a whois, and if proven that I have no connection to those you have been falsely drawing relations between me with, a public apology otherwise an equal treatment to him as I had received, in all fairness. Melissagoethe (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissagoethe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Edit x2: Correction of grammatical errors as well as signing off.

I read the lengthy arguments by Melissagoethe, and they amount to WP:LAWYER wikilawyering, convoluted accussations of bad faith against User:TheMile, User:KleenupKrew and User:Nsk92, and refusal to admit any wrongdoing from her part.

Notice that Melissa is requesting a checkuser (a "whois") to be conducted on User:Melissagoethe and her alleged socks User:Linlikai and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:George512

Just a quick note that I blocked him for edit warring, even though I was one of the editors who reversed his inclusion of information about him in May 12. If there's any objection, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You bad boy, removing non-notable information from articlespace. Terrible. Have a cookie. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

block log NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has made the following legal threat: All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.[15] Please block him. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That diff's a week old, and doesn't strike me as a clear legal threat. Why is this suddenly an issue, so far after the fact? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Luna here, this isn't a clear threat at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's suddenly an issue because he made more last night in a sudden burst of incivility, example [16]. It's also in issue because of the Arbcom case these pages are under. See [17] for more links and discussion. RxS (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That just strikes me as a rant rather than a legal threat, to be honest. Probably best just to post civility warnings at the moment, though his last edit suggests he's left for a while anyway. It wouldn't appear to be a great loss if he was blocked, though. Black Kite 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the former link should be placed with the other evidence shown at the latter link? If it is being discussed at AE I'm not sure that it needs to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was placed there last night. See the full (such as it is) discussion with links. [18] See the Arbcom case here [19] I'm stupefied that we have to put up with this crap. RxS (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the link shows the contribution being made a week ago. As RxS writes, the message was placed at User talk:Haemo last night. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I'm an idiot, apparently. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I previously marked this as resolved, as we are in agreement that this is not a legal threat. Can we re-resolve it now? :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's we? It's very clearly a legal threat. All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.? That's pretty clear. In any case he's been blocked now...RxS (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We = everyone but you so far (with the exception of Ice Cold Beer). The statement made is not a clear threat, just a general observation (whether its a correct one or not remains to be seen as I'm unsure of edit histories being admissible in court). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could definitely be taken both ways. I read it more like "someone's going to get you eventually" than "I am filing papers in Florida" but whatever, the discussion is over. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinated Distruption?

Random IPs are running through and deprodding, detagging (especially merge tags), reversing consensus based merges, and performing straight out vandalism on various anime and manga related articles. Each article is being hit multiple times by random IPs. So far, I personally have had to have at least seven articles protected to stop it, but they just keep moving on to more. During one of the first hits, one of the IPs implied in a message on Four War Gods that someone had spammed 4Chan with requests to come mess with the articles[20]. Articles I know of that have been hit so far Four War Gods (7 before RPP), Utsugi (5 before RPP), GetBackers story arcs (at this point, after 4 I sent to RPP), Brain Trust (GetBackers), TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, and TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3. Tasuku Meguro may be the next on (3 so far). I've posted in the project to see if any others have been hit.

It is possible that it may be specific against me as all of those are ones I performed the merges on, and another one hit was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate. However, I'd prefer not to be totally paranoid about it :P.

Either way, there are so many IPs doing this, that I'm not sure what else can be done by keep sending the pages to RPP, but figure I should post here to see if there are any other options. Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other methods of dealing with 4chan idiocy too. Unfortunately, sometimes it just takes a lot of it before they go on to something else. Since there do seem to be some specific targets here, RPP is likely not a bad idea as specific targets make themselves known either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really hope they get bored soon. Tasuku page is now also at RPP. It sucks that its so many IPs...can't even do any temporary range blocks :( Collectonian (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way of determining the likely targets of 4chan guided vandals? Short periods of semi-protection should increase the ennui factor considerably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might be spamming news of article mergers in WP:ANIME on 4chan in a way to disrupt the process because one person disagrees with it. However, I don't know of many who would take the time to copy/paste a Wikipedia link, and vandalize it, if they saw one or more posted on 4chan, unless the one spamming the links is not coming off as calling for disruption. In that case, the spammer is merely spamming the links, and disrupting the 4chan boards, therefore, the 4channers get angry at the spammer, and take out their frustration on the links the spammer provided, namely the Wikipedia articles listed above. It might not even be anything more than the spammer merely providing the links and nothing more, letting the 4channers do the rest as the spammer expects them to. It's actually quite logical when you think about it, because the spammer by him or herself can't do anything, as if they tried they'd just get blocked; it would make much more sense to gather a group of vandals and let them do the work. In that case, either we wait it out and let the spammer get tired, or we wait until the 4channers don't want to deal with it anymore and they even ignore it; or we just ignore it and revert.--十八 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to determine. I can't navigate 4chan's site worth a darn, so haven't seen any specific posts, just the one vandal who left the message about it. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh, more of that article

insofar that the discussion is more extensive over at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes more of that article everyone is already annoyed with: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. This time we have an admin, JzG, removing content through the protection. He did so stating there was never consensus to add it in the first place, even though its been in the article in numerous forms for months. To show JzG is obviously involved we have the following:

• Previously removing it: [21]
• Arguing it should not be included: [22], specific difs: [23] [24] [25]
• Editing through protection: [26]

Can someone please revert the edit, or remove protection (less preferred) so everyone can edit equally. Also if you see the discussion only JzG and John Smith believe it should not be included at all, everyone else felt it should be to some extent, even if in a small version. This edit further was clearly not by consensus as the talk page shows, and clearly not a BLP or Copyright issue --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This was possibly an accident, so I have asked JzG as well as someone else had, to revert it. However barring that some3rd party admin intervention may be required. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a more extended discussion over at WP:AN. I suggest we close this and concentrate there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wwwwwwhatsup

Would people care to take a look at the contributions of this new editor shown here. In particular, one at least of the images uploaded is not of the subject. I am pretty sure that the image of Clare Martin is not of Clare Martin. You can see photos of Clare here and here. I have queried it on the user's talk page, but the other images may be suspect also. --Bduke (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Maxine Carr.jpg this pretty much clinches it, a vandal. Polly (Parrot) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted this, considering it purported to have been taken at a time when Maxine Carr was still in prison. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours so we now need to clean up. --Bduke (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Between us I think it is done. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All deleted; checking, none of them were of the claimed subjects, and the metadata was inconsistent with a claim of self-making. Now, having seen no other productive edits from this user, do we hope for the best or indef as a vandalism-only account? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest seeing what he does after 24 hours. If he vandalizes again, block indefinitely. --Bduke (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.49.77.67

User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in over 24 hours. Suggest ignore and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat, User:Nukeh

Would like a second pair of eyes here [27] please. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is that a legal threat? It sounds more like a threat of a legal threat. I wouldn't worry about it, though — he'll either do nothing, or make a real threat, in which case we will block him. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've extended to indef, that's clear enough to me, and even seems to refer to specific cases. If the user is willing to clarify their intents, I'm happy to listen, but no use taking chances in the meantime. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the block logs and contribs, I support the indef block. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's definitely a threat now: [28] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and protected by Nakon. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elspeth Monro socks

• note: Restoring prematurely archived thread. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), who is indefblocked with an enormous amount of socks and IPs, is back vandalizing with yet more IPs and new sockpuppets. His M.O. is changing his old sock's pages with to "sockproven, or removing the notice altogether with poorly spelled summaries and "sk" in the summary, and generally adding comments to his own socks talk pages. All of these edits are Monro [29] as well as these [30]. And if you look at the contributions, you'll see he's created new socks as well. Simply following the path of the IPs contributing to the userpages and talks of other accounts and so on will generally bring you down a path to find HUGE numbers of disruptive Monro socks. To stop this sock talk page vandalism I suggest protecting all Monro sock user and usertalk pages (like we do with a certain other determined troll). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs in question. My solution would be to just delete all their pages, but some people may dislike that.-Wafulz (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the only thing he (she?) is editing is their own sock talk pages, who the heck cares? If it is incivil RBI, if not, ignore it? Loren.wilton (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases of sockpuppetry, it's important for admins and others who help stop socks to be able to see the accounts and contribs of the offender - this helps in recognizing patterns, and helps keep the offender from being able to continue on the same articles or with the same m.o.. If and when they try to return, this evidence makes it easier to catch them. I would have no problem with protecting the pages if the indef-blocked user is removing the sock tags. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User adding copyright content and then removing CSD I9 tags

PadmaDharma101 (talk · contribs) recently added copyright content to Brahma and the uploaded two copyrighted images Image:Brahmana.jpg and Image:Brahma hc67.jpg. Original sources for the edit/images are [31], [32] [33]. Since then the user has been removing the CSD tags, and apparently vandalizing my talk-page. Can some admin take a look ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Image Image:Brahmana.jpg is my image. if any user has any suspicion you can investagate yourself. --PadmaDharma101 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the exact same-seized image that was uploaded; and this is a link to a larger copy on the same wesbite, where the original Batik painting is on sale. Also notice the copyright notices on the website. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the images. PadmaDharma, first you upload copyrighted images and add copyrighted test to arcticles, then you vandalise other users' comments. If you continue that way, you may be blocked without further warnings. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP utilizing Semi-Protection Templates.

I've been checking the edit history of an anonymous IP user, and I just noticed this edit in his history. I didn't realize that Anonymous IP's can dole out Semi-Protection templates.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough. I removed the template. Obviously should not have been added. Enigma ^message 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Acupuncturist

A self confessed acupuncturist User:Jim Butler is edit warring on numerous acupuncture articles, most recently here[34] removing scientific research showing that acupuncture has no proven effect. He has ignored a request on his talkpage [35]. Any help in persuading him to the course of reason would be useful for the project. Mccready (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This absurd situation is explained below. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee has summarized the situation well below. I will add more there. I welcome scrutiny of my edits, because I think I do a good job here, and most editors (across the idealogical spectrum, from hardcore skeptics to devoted alt-med proponents) seem to agree. Have a look at my talk page and block log, Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log). For contrast, see Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).

With regard to the edit warring, I left a message at Talk:Acupuncture on April 10th explaining the various reasons why a long list in the lead section was inappropriate. Mccready did not respond. Instead, he just kept reverting, despite the fact that five different editors disagreed with his edits [36][37][38][39][40], and no one else agreed with him. That's his general approach: long on edit warring, short on discussion.

I also think it's a little disingenuous for Mccready to post a comment on my talk page at 05:33, 27 April 2008, then post here just a half hour later at 06:06, 27 April 2008 complaining that I "ignored" it. As it happens, I indeed replied two hours later, at 07:26, 27 April 2008. Talk about insulting the intelligence of one's readers...

Oh, and with regard to the implied conflict of interest: according to WP:COI, Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Most editors say that my edits are well-informed and NPOV. Mccready, however, edits tendentiously, and has not disclosed an affiliation that may impact his edits: "I'm Kevin McCready, a member of the Australian Skeptics ... The skeptics are famous for our standing offer of $50,000 for anyone who can demonstrate for example that acupuncture is anything more than a placebo..."[41]

So who's the problem editor, and who has a potential COI? --Jim Butler (t) 08:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO [42]

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone: [43] [44]

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. [45] After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: [46], this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention an apology? Try Wikipedia:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Wikipedia editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy. You called Hetar a "hateful boor," a clear personal attack, on his talkpage. The policy says no personal attacks, not to anyone. Yes, Hetar termed your repeated posts to his talk page after he had made it clear that he did not want to discuss a matter with you as "harassment" and "stalking". This seems to be the "attack" to which you refer. But, even if this were unacceptable behavior on Hetar's part, Hetar doing this does not entitle you to call him a boor. Again, I call on you to apologize--sorry, no wikilink, Carcharoth--for your personal attack on Hetar. This is the second time in two months that I have felt you have violated WP:NPA: [47] is the first time I brought a personal attack to your attention, much more mildly. Nor am I the only user to have ever admonished you for your lack of civility: User:Newyorkbrad commenting on your user talk page: [48] as an example. Darkspots (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So if you accuse me of "lack of civility" on my talk page, that's somehow not a "personal attack" in violation of the policy, but if I call Hetar a "boor" on his talk page, that's a "personal attack" in violation of the policy? Should I have said instead that Hetar was "uncivil" rather than that Hetar is a "boor"? Is there some crucial difference between the two words that matters here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither User:Hetar nor I have ever posted on your user talk page about anything. User:Newyorkbrad has, so I will inform him of this discussion. I do not intend to argue policy on ANI with you, an administrator; I have stated that I think certain of your edits are unacceptable under policy, but I am interested to see what other editors that watch this page have to say about your edits to User Talk:Hetar. I am often wrong. Darkspots (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" versus "boor". If you call another user "uncivil" you're upholding Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. But if you call another user a "boor", then you're violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.
• If you post a short polite request for another user's opinion on Wikipedia editing when, unbeknownst to you, he erroneously thinks he has asked you not to post on his user talk page, then you're guilty of some offense, whose precise nature I don't know how to define.
• If the other user points to another page where he claims to have said to you: "Don't ever post on my talk page", and you respond that it doesn't actually say that, your response constitutes "harassment". But his erroneous accusations against you do not constitute "harassment" or any other offense.
• If a user writes on his talk page, "This is MY talk page and no one can post here without permission", how does that fit into Wikipedia policies? The talk pages exist for communication among Wikipedians, who are not supposed to live on isolated islands. How extensive is a right to forbid others to post on one's user talk page? Are they completely private property? Can I say: no matter what complaints you may have against my behavior, I forbid you to talk to me about them? Even on one's user talk page, which is not private property and which exists for a reason? Hetar claims a fully unlimited right to decide who can post on his user talk page. Only Hetar and the user who said no one can ever post on his user talk page have claimed such a right, as far as I know.
• Which is worse: to lose one's patience with a user when one SPECIFIES objections to their editing of an article, or to say "I have no objections to any of your contributions to Wikipedia, but I hate you for no particular reason so go away and don't do anything that might remind me that you exist"? Must one be meekly obedient to another user who addresses one in that way?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it. Mct mht (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The point is that everyone did drop it, then Michael Hardy came back two years later and started calling the user unpleasant names. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and it leaves this user thinking that as long as he contributes to Wikipedia, he is going to have to deal with User:Michael Hardy popping up and leaving messages about something that happened years and years ago. So maybe he stops contributing, because it's not worth the hassle (pardon me, Hetar, I'm getting hypothetical here, bear with me please) and we lose a user because of personal attacks. This, to me, is not "understandable" or acceptable, and therefore I'm not going to drop it.

So, Hetar has made his story clear. He has been through some dispute resolution, and yet Michael Hardy, years later, is posting on his talk page and calling him names. It seems to me that one of two things is true. One, he is being unreasonable to ask that Michael Hardy leave him alone on his talk page. Two, he is being reasonable to ask Michael Hardy to leave him alone. If #1 is true, then someone should politely explain to him why his request is not reasonable. If #2 is the case, then an administrator needs to get involved and make sure that someone explains to Michael Hardy that this isn't acceptable and that he has to stop, and back it up with action when and if Michael posts on Hetar's page again. The reality is that Michael Hardy has sysop rights on this website. It may very well be that the reasons of every administrator who has looked at this thread and not gotten involved have had nothing to do with the fact that Michael is an administrator. That still does not change the conclusion that the community can draw from this situation is that admistrators are above policies like WP:NPA. I might not feel that way (clearly), and you (the person reading this, not Mhc mht) might not feel that way, but that conclusion is still possible to draw from this set of circumstances. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Has been through some dispute resolution"? What does that mean, specifically, in this case? I think he posted on the "third opinion" page, and IIRC nobody answered. My reason for raising this again after, as you say, everybody did "stop it", is mentioned above: some issues were never dealt with. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The constant thread through your defense of your edits, Michael Hardy, is to compare your edis to the edits of other users. What you do not seem to do is compare your edits to the standards set by policy. You in effect are asking, if Newyorkbrad can characterize my edits as "uncivil", why can I not tell Hetar that he is a "hateful boor"? Why should my insults not be compared to the offense of Hetar's actions? What I believe you are failing to take into account is that WP:NPA is not a policy with an exemption for dealing with difficult users. I also wonder if you've noticed any of the short threads that have come and gone during this discussion with incivility reported, blocks and/or warnings issued, no fanfare. Darkspots (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not insulting him; I was accusing him. You're saying there have been threads where incivility is reported. But you tell me that when I am the one who reports incivility, then that is incivility on my part. Does policy say that I am the only one who is forbidden to report inciviility? It seems to be conventional practice to complain to the uncivil person that he is uncivil, before reporting it here on this page. That is what I did: I complained to Hetar of his incivility on his talk page. I used the word "boor" rather than "uncivil", and somehow that's being considered a different thing. I also said "hateful" and that appears to be factually correct: he hates me, for no reason at all that he's willing to identify. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The first paragraph of WP:NPA. Other users have commented on your edits; instead of commenting strictly on Hetar's behavior, you have summed him up as a person, made a judgement, and delivered in an attacking way; an insult. An attack. A violation of our policies. People feel differently when someone attacks them, personally, rather than decrying one or more of their edits. You could be driving contributors away with these sorts of edits. This hurts the project. I will not compare your edits to the potential lost edits of these contributors, and say one outweighs the other. I do think it is possible for you to convey your dismay with something without calling other editors mentally challenged or boors or liars. Quite effectively, in fact, and in a way that is much less likely to "deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Darkspots (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I ever called anyone mentally challenged or a liar? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • boor [49], referring to User:Hetar.
  • mentally challenged [50], referring to User:SatyrTN.
  • liar [51], referring to User:Kurykh. Darkspots (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Well I can certainly claim that I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar". There really are such things as honesty and dishonesty. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I admire your great sense of honesty. Shall I now follow your exemplary example and call you an arrogant bastard? It's quite a miracle that you are still an administrator, with that condescending attitude of yours. —Kurykh 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Darkspots (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

...in the case of "Satyr", I should have said that he was irresponsible and should have paid attention when he did that particular edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I confess to feeling discouraged. I'm trying to get you to see that you employ personal attacks and that they are against policy. Reading over this discussion, I realize that at no point have you shown any indication that you've read the policy, much less that you respect it. Every personal attack that I've shown you to have made, you defend as justifiable. NPA is not a natural state of affairs, right? It's an artificial construct. The users of this site agree to certain standards of conduct to create a good working environment for collaboration.

But you haven't agreed to NPA, right? The ironic thing is that you're an administrator, who is supposed to understand policy, respect it, and enforce it when necessary to ensure a good environment for the encyclopedia to be improved. You haven't even agreed to not employ further personal attacks against Hetar on his talk page. I'm not sure how to continue.

I guess I want to leave you with the thought that I was actively participating in the discussion that you started on WT:RFA about speedy deletion. I thought some of your ideas were interesting and thought-provoking. [52]. Then, suddenly, you brought in the example deletion made by SatyrTN, and your personal attacks against that user really soured my interest in the entire topic. I made the edit that I linked to several paragraphs above, and I stopped participating. So did everyone else. The discussion stopped, pretty much dead in the water. I can't read the minds of everyone else in the discussion, but I know your personal attack stopped me from participating further, and that was the point that everyone else stopped, too. I guess your latest edit indicated some regret about your edits in that discussion. That's a good thing, I suppose.

It's not too late for you to apologize to these three users and resolve to contribute without personal attacks, going forward. I'm never going to cut out anger and things I say and do in anger from my real life. With WP, I can always come back to something later, when the time is right to put my thoughts down correctly. Except on ANI, with this 24-hour archive cycle. Grrr. I think your ideas about speedy deletion, like I said, are interesting and could really move the way we handle new articles in a better direction. Those ideas aren't going to get the hearing they deserve if you continue to proceed in the fashion you have in the past. I wouldn't have spent all this time here, on this discussion, if I didn't think there was at least a slight chance it could help the project as a whole. Darkspots (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-post: Official Election Announcement

Please forgive cross-post: posting in several places for maximum visibility.

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

Anyone taking up the offer to translate? Into English? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We (the community) get one new board member. We can nominate candidates in May, and vote in June. No one knows how we'll vote yet, but it'll be secret ballot and a third party will do the counting on their server. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility / NPA - 69.244.181.184

• 69.244.181.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

I normally avoid making any suggestions as to appropriate remedies when discussing things on ANI, however after reviewing the contributions of this recently-unblocked IP I am requesting re-instituting the block, possibly indefinitely, due to constant trolling and disruption. Some high points since the block expired, for your consumption:

• Wikipedia is CONTROLLED by liberals that PRETEND anyone can edit it.
• save me the lecture about how your VILE, INSULTING, CONDESCENDING & POISONOUS attitude in no way affects your ability to edit this article fairly! hahaha!
• And before some well-meaning liberal Wik Admin sends me a note reminding me that this is not what the talk pages are for, explain to me why this JAGOFF's comments have been left here unmolested for over THREE weeks.
• I've been to black churches more often in the last year than EVERY white liberal editor of Wikipedia combined. And that's a WHOLE lot of folks. lol

Plenty more where that came from, should more review be needed. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Block log said it all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the earlier discussion can be marked as resolved. APK ^{yada yada} 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...Can any of you brainiacs ACTUALLY prove that this guy is the sockpuppet that Blaxthos says he is?

Thought not.

Then, for the good of Wikipedia, you need to resign. Now.

Thanks. Now if you have proof, then I'll quit editing. Otherwise you leave permanently.

Deal? 68.40.200.77 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This nice person left me a lovely message. APK ^{yada yada} 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• 68.40.200.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Looks like this is another IP of same user, probably needs to be blocked in tandem. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:98.210.14.5 at Stefan Banach

This user continues to make increasingly nationalistic unsourced edits to this article, against consensus, in spite of numerous attempts to discuss on the article's talk page, and in spite of repeated warnings on their own talk page. I suggest either a block or semi-protection of the article (as already proposed at Requests for protection).--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[53]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [54] [55] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[61] [62]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[63] [64] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Wikipedia and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about interpreting Breadh2o's latest as a promise to leave; about a month ago he said on the talk page "I'm out of here and you are on notice." He's still around. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Since we've gone almost a day without comment, could someone other than me, Alun, or Breadh2o please interpret the consensus before the BOT moves the discussion to the archives. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds reasonable. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest it premature to call for consensus after a mere 48 hours, particularly considering my request for mediation was submitted on April 9 and there has yet to be any response. On April 8 I had contacted user AGK seeking editor assistance, but moved toward mediation when Alun presumed consensus (which could well be interpreted differently, as the results were underwhelming after 3 weeks and 2 of 3 respondents did not engage in a consensus building dialogue) on the RfC and telegraphed an intent to resume edits. Indeed, on April 10, as I feared, he unilaterally purged both contributions of mine which I continue to believe met WP guidelines and policies for reliable and verifiable sourcing, is minority opinion (but exceeded "tiny" minority status) and which qualified both as notable and relevant. If and when mediation is forthcoming, I can make my case, unless I am silenced beforehand in a pre-emptive strike filed after my filing. It's confusing, I know. In any event, I believe a rush-to-judgment 48 hours after the post on AN/I would be premature, especially considering I have honored a voluntary suspension of any edits whatsoever since then, other than this response, and my two other replies above. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a great rush, I was just concerned that we not get archived by the BOT which, according to the recent history, has been archiving discussions after 24 hours of inactivity.

As far as I know, User:AGK has neither contacted anyone about your request nor has he scheduled this problem for mediation. I have posted a notice on his talk page so he is aware of this discussion on AN/I. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be somewhat early to close the AN/I, it is significant that in the month since this matter was first raised in an informal Request for Comments, the only person I recall who has come out in favor of Breadh2o's position was the anonymous editor who echoed his criticism on the edit summary to an article edit[65], and whom Breadh2o has called the Sunday vandal.[66] The remaining responses were critical or neutral. On the AN/I, at this point six commenters (including AlunSalt and myself) favored imposition of some form of a ban and one (Breadh2o) opposed a ban and called for delay. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A statistical analysis that contrasts 7 science articles on Wikipedia (anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry and physics) to archaeoastronomy, shows how anomolous this article and its editors are, and illustrates the foundation of our conflict, my exasperation and, sadly, incivility at times. My two opponents, I believe, are driven by an agenda which hinges on a crusade to muzzle me. They make no secret they are interested in achieving GA or FA status, a reason Alun Salt notes above, making my continuing presence undesirable. See my 3 charts The article's footnote count more than doubles the most footnotes of any comparable science article. The number of editors on archaeoastronomy (eliminating the 9 who have only performed minor spelling or formatting corrections) are essentially the 3 of us, and my stuff has been purged for the past fortnight, leaving the two of them responsible for 100% of content. Comparatively, in each of the other articles, literally dozens of editors share in editing and consensus. McCluskey and Salt have asserted a special brand of possessiveness unseen in any of the other articles, as determined by their analysis of consensus. I am a challenge to them in that I represent a minority opinion. Few academics, outside of David H. Kelley, Vine Deloria II, Martin Brennan and some other renegades, would approve of my contrarian opinion, however it is backed up by multiple media accounts which I have cited and it is not a "tiny" minority that believes as I do. I am in no popularity contest or out to win accolades. I want the best article possible, fair and balanced, and I protest the apparent violations of WP:OWN which I hope to raise in mediation ASAP. Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the dates for the past 100 edits track back accordingly: anthropology (Feb. 13), archaeology (Feb. 18), archaeoastronomy (Mar. 22), astronomy (Mar. 11), biology (Mar. 30), botany (Jan. 20), Chemistry (Oct. 11) and physics (Mar. 20). Breadh2o (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A few Points: First, these data reflect the fact that archaeoastronomy is a small and highly specialized field; the number of active investigators is probably around 250 (a ballpark estimate of the number of members of ISAAC, SEAC, and SIAC). It is not surprising that there aren't as many editors on Archaeoastronomy as on the major science articles.

Second, the sample of 100 archaeoastronomy edits for the period from March 22 to the present reflects an anomalous period when the edit war was in full tilt and edits by the involved disputants would be expected to play a larger than normal role. I am surprised that as many as 12 different editors were involved during that contentious period.

Finally, given the small number of editors that Breadh2o has demonstrated to be actively involved, it doesn't seem reasonable to delay closure until we achieve some unspecified large number of comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First, should only 250 people worldwide be permitted to opine on the WP archaeoastronomy article? Second, have there been contentious edit wars over on the biology and physics articles during the same period? Third, yesterday he was "not in a great rush" for closure. What has changed in 24 hours? Fourth, the chemistry article has no difficulty admitting alchemy was foundational to its history in the very first paragraph. But the authors of the archaeoastronomy article absolutely will not permit any acknowledgment of the tremendous interest in the Great Pyramid by British astronomers from the mid 1600s to 1894 (and especially in the last 35 years of that era) to be allowed as part of the article's history, though I tried including this documented genesis several times; none survived reverts. Instead, the origins of archaeoastronomy must be sanitized for peer review. -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure comparing edit numbers is helpful. For example on this thread there have been 8 edits by SteveMcCluskey, 13 by Breadh2o and this is my second. I don't think this says anything meaningful about the debate. It may be indicative of me writing first on a word processor for spell-checking, using the preview function, and taking a relaxed attitude to mistakes which elude me, so long as the message is comprehensible.

Much more interesting is Breadh2o's footnote comparison. He is absolutely right, from the sample he's selected Archaeoastronomy is anomalous. Unfortunately he's chosen the wrong sample. As he notes I'm interested in contributing to an FA class article. Comparison with this month's FA class articles shows that the average number of footnotes is around 82. It's probably fractionally higher, because of re-use of footnotes on articles like Ocean sunfish. The spread is wide. Just 19 on the Oliver Typewriter Company and 176 on Emma Goldman. The difference is probably due to the use of notes where necessary. This would be material that is likely to be challenged, and recent comments have asked for more citiations. Compared to the entries Anabolic steroids 138 and Rotavirus 124, given the contentious nature of Archaeoastronomy the count is consistent with an article editing with an aim for FA status. From his comments above and elsewhere it would seem that Breadh2o isn't convinced this is a good idea. I'm not sure what a Good Article attaboy is, but in context it doesn't seem positive.

There's another revision to make which I was going to try and write tonight, but I'm dropping my internet connection a lot for some reason and used my time writing this instead. Once it is done it'll need to sit a while to be copy-edited and revised as people think necessary. After that it will hopefully be ready for peer-review and then FAC. If Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories then this will not be possible.

While consensus isn't a vote count, it would be helpful to know what Breadh2o would consider evidence of a consensus to disregard his original research. Alun Salt (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"...Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories..." WP:IDHT my argument is specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say about the institution's attitude toward diffusionism. An intolerance for pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact has a bearing on certain archaeoastronomical claims, such as the WV claim cited in the article (and the companion CO/OK claims to balance the case, which have been purged) that might be indicative of such. WP:NPA -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Breadh2o's references to Stanford etc are new here, but it is a example of his repetitive line of reasoning. Breadh2o has raised the connection between Ogham, a 1st Mil AD writing system from the British Isles to Kennewick Man (9th Mil BC) and pre-Clovis settlement (~15th mil BC) (the TIME reference) and the Solutrean hypothesis (~25th Mil BC) (the Dennis Stanford reference) before [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (I stopped counting around April 8) The highlight is an apology for connecting Ogham to pre-Clovis material which turns into an accusation of dishonesty by the start of the next paragraph. [75]

The connection between Kennewick Man and Ogham has been described as preposterous by Breadh2o, but we seem to see it again. Another common theme is that an essay on metrology by Eric Michael Reisenauer places pyramidology at the start of archaeoastronomy, even though archaeoastronomy is not mentioned and there's references showing that pyramidology wasn't really at the start of anything much. The CO/OK claims are a reference to claimed Ogham inscriptions at Crack Cave. There are, as far as I'm aware, no peer-reviewed articles on the site. This, it is claimed, is because One would not normally expect a peer-reviewed journal or conclave to be critical of widely held tenets of the institution it serves. The Atlantic article includes the following observation: "Kelley disagrees with Fell's theory that the Grave Creek symbols represent some sort of astronomical text." This would not appear to be supportive of Breadh2o's archaeoastronomical claims. The rest of the article is not about ancient astronomy, but Ogham-in-America.

So once again we seem to have irrelevant or contradictory references and no indication as to what Breadh2o will accept as evidence that he may be mistaken. Instead of anything to do with archaeoastronomy we have another argument against archaeologists. His response to the (frequent) request to justify his sources and their inclusion in the article is usually met with WP:IDHT, but WP:NPA is new. I think with claims of stealth archaeologists (see quote cited above on my 1st entry in this thread), peer-review acting as a barrier (examples of articles by Dennis Stanford and Vine Deloria in major journals have been given), the idea that editors are working for 'the archaeological establishment' (see his 2nd entry on this thread) and a proposed collusion between myself and Doug Weller (who he's identified as an archaeologist and thus by definition not impartial), there's prima facie evidence that Breadh2o is suffering from an unacknowledged POV and that commenting on his conspiracy theorising is not a personal attack.

It's disappointing, but not unexpected that he hasn't responded to any of the other issues raised in my previous posting questioning his analysis.

If his argument genuinely were '...specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say...' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Especially if we were talking about archaeoastronomy. Sadly I think this would indicate he has no intention of accepting a consensus, no intention of working with, as opposed to against, other editors and no intention of moving his speculations on hyper-diffusionism to a more appropriate article. Alun Salt (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh20's editing appears to be an example of 'Civil POV-pushing', as explained at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. One of Raul's proposals is:

Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of single-purpose advocacy. (Suggested by MastCell).

Though this is only a proposal, not a policy, I suggest that there is plenty of justification for just going ahead with an article ban in this case, based on our existing customs and traditions. All that we need is an admin who is willing to enact such a ban based on the evidence in this thread and the apparent consensus of those who have responded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On the one hand, WP policy expects of us to assume Good Faith. At the opposite extreme, I'm facing a stubborn opponent who persists in a pattern of mischaracterization and false linkage of Ogham and Kennewick Man long after I have discredited it, pointing to what Stanford says about institutional intimidation toward colleagues digging below the Clovis layer as instructive of a generally held attitude toward anything diffusionist. This is classic WP:IDHT as is the narrow characterization of content of the Reisenauer article and the TIME article. The reason there's been so much repetitiveness is that Alun never concedes a damned thing I say, despite saying it a hundred different ways. I won't relitigate it all here,but perhaps some admins will now understand, especially if they take the time to read Reisenauer's piece on changing British identity 1859-1890 and other refs, how I can lose my patience with reverts based on disingenuous reasoning. Now I'm in the Gulag, facing a tonguectomy for the silliest of all things, losing my temper. Pray tell, who's disrupting who? -- Breadh2o (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this stupid thing is getting ridiculous. You're now alleging that this is a discipline wide unfair bias that you're using Wikipedia to fight against, but that that doesn't count as a civil fringe POV push? Sorry, that's like saying there's an unfair bias in science to believe in a spherical earth, and that the scientists are all wrong, it's flat, but there's such a huge conspiracy of ego that we just can't see how wrong everyone but you is. No, EdJohnston's got this nail on the head. You're engaged in a classic model of the 'Civil POV Push', and you really, at this point, need to drop it, leave the article, and move on to something else. Further, you seem to think Alunsalt is OBLIGATED to 'concede a damned thing' once in a while. That's not the case, sorry. the cooperative model here isn't so absolute that we have to allow lies and bullshit in, just to be civil or help find consensus. Consensus doesn't have to mean compromise, and so much more so when compromise means letting fringe bullshit in. Rigorous adherence to high standards of research and scholarship improve this place, even if it means fighting at a line in the sand. Finally, that little pity party at the end is enjoyable false martyrdom, but it doesn't mean much. Topic ban well justified. ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(uninvolved Admin, who spent too much time reviewing this dispute) If you want us to assume good faith in your actions, then demonstrate it by not editting this article or its Talk page for a long time. Your stubbornness over adding material to an article that is, at best, tengential, is the kind of attitude that drives away valuable contributors. This article is not about possible trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific pre-Columbian contact; it is about what archeology can tell us about ancient opinions of the heavens. The only commonality these two topics have is that many of the same monuments are discussed by both. If you cannot see the difference between those two statements, you will continue to find your experience with Wikipedia to be frustrating. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking this over, I'd say the only person not supporting an article/topic ban is Breadh2o (talk · contribs). While we have low participation in this article and this discussion, this is because it's not a mainstream or popular topic; despite low numbers, I think there is a clear consensus. I'd say a topic/article ban is in order, though I'd like to hear suggestions for how long it should be, or whether it should be indef (perhaps with the option for Breadh2o to petition to lift the ban after some period of time. Or not.). I think that if Breadh2o is not willing to observe an article/topic ban, and/or unwilling to cease attacking other editors on talkpages and in userspace, then a block is also in order. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be something close to a consensus here, but no one has volunteered to summarize the discussion and advise Breadh2o of the consensus. One reason for this reluctance may be the complexity of the discussion so far. Since I called this AN/I it would not be appropriate for me to draft the consensus, but as a step to clarify matters I am tabulating the opinions expressed so far regarding the requested ban. When editors made multiple proposals, I tabulated the most recent one.

Would someone volunteer to draft a summary of the consensus. It goes without saying that this does not close discussion and there is always time to add further comments.

User's Opinion Date	Ban	Duration	Comments
SteveMcCluskey 16:12, 21 April 2008	archastr & talk	permanent	alternate: voluntary suspension
Breadh2o 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	none	n/a
Alun Salt 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	archastr & talk	indefinite	until shows productive edits
Haemo 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	topic ban	some time	time to dilute personal conflict
EdJohnston 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)	article		apparent consensus
ThuranX 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)	topic ban
llywrch 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)	article and talk page	voluntary for some time
Kathryn NicDhàna 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)	topic/article	uncertain	perhaps indef petition good behavior; bad behavior block

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK? I ONLY joined in on THIS discussion. TOPIC BAN? What in the world makes you think I need a topic ban? ThuranX (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, sorted out further on talk pages)

I think the table is collecting all the opinions expressed in this thread as to whether Breadh2o should be banned from editing Archaeoastronomy, its Talk page, or both. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. All i saw was the edit summary where he'd duplicated my name, and the diff material. That's a shitty presentation of 'consensus', when it looks like a list of bannings. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks fairly clear what the outcome is going to be, so I just have a few closing thoughts to share before I am closed out as a contributor to archaeoastronomy. Ed Johnston's citation of Raul654's Civil POV pushing was very helpful and I wish I could have learned how to distinguish myself and my arguments from this generalized characterization earlier in my time here. I believe there are distinctions I could make, but they'd probably come off as defensive and desperate in the 11th hour ahead of my contributory execution, so I'll forego this. Except, it should be instructive to note how author Steve McCluskey is cited in fully one-third of the footnotes in the article's intro. Does the discussion of Hopi skywatching (Steve's pet research) really deserve such prominence while the popular archaeoastronomy poster children of Stonehenge, Bru na Boinne (Newgrange) and Chichen Itza get downplayed down article? And how does my citing Reisenauer's insights into the formative nationalistic debate that gripped England and matured astronomy ahead of the spin off of archaeoastronomy, how does this amount to POV pushing on my part? Whereas excision of the influence apparently does not? I don't believe I have been given a fair shake and if this alone brands me as a pseudoscientist, then that must be the last resort of an academic defense against whatever may threaten its prestige and self-esteem. I call 'em as I see 'em. And when the authors open up the issue of Ogham archaeoastronomy in America as Fringe, and I confine my balancing context to this very same sub-topic the authors elected to launch, then see the context limited to only the attacks they want heard by readers without the balance, then there is something fundamentally wrong. Wikipedia represents itself as a dynamic organism or database of knowledge in flux that prides itself in accommodating diverse opinions, some which might be minority. But there's no point in fighting City Hall when academics are given a free pass and have free reign to rewrite history and restrict context to whatever degree they choose with the blessings bestowed by the organism of consensus. Few minority opinions, even when they have their advocates, are likely to survive the gauntlet of academic peer review and popularity contests. BTW, Kathryn, I have ceased attacking editors on talkpages and userspaces, But as with Alun's contributions above from 2 days ago, some apparently have carte blanche to persist in WP:IDHT and WP:NPA whenever it suits their fancy. And nothing is done about that or the duet's self-serving POV pushing of its own, in the article in question. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment on the introduction "Does the discussion of Hopi skywatching (Steve's pet research) really deserve such prominence..." is reasonable, and the answer is not now, no. I was planning to use Hopi skywatching as the ethnoastronomy example. After reading a poor (archaeological) paper I've used zenith tubes and Chaco canyon, so I think a re-drafted introduction would mention those instead. The reason I initially planned to write about Hopi skywatching was that the use of directionality and colour symbolism had implications for the study of many other astronomical practices in the American south-west and further afield. It is a major work in Ethnoastronomy (which is something the article also discusses because it's very difficult to draw a line between ethno- and archaeo- astronomy and many people don't bother to). Even so, I had contacted someone else I know who is familiar with aboriginal ethnoastronomy to write that section to avoid overloading the topic with Steve's work. I also dropped plans for a section on hybrid methodologies which would have mentioned Kate Spence's work in Egypt and Steve McCluskey's project on church orientations because I thought the way I would be presenting it would be an original synthesis. Seeing as Steve McCluskey a major figure in archaeoastronomy, he was recently president of the international organisation ISAAC, it's not surprising there's a similar number of citations to other major authors like Aveni, Krupp, Iwaniszewski and Ruggles. One of the reasons for the extensive bibliography is that I am trying to use other authors where possible rather than rely on just those five people.

As for the "contributory execution," I think it may be worth clarifying that this isn't a ban from Wikipedia, just one topic. If Breadh2o wishes to continue contributing on other topics he would be welcome. This gives him ample opportunity to present any evidence based on reliable sources about Celts in America, in the relevant articles. Alun Salt (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these comments by Alun telltale of the "special brand of possessiveness" (WP:OWN) regarding the article I have alleged above? He is making arrangements for an approved contributor to add to the approved extensive bibliography, while banishing me and my verifiable, reliable sources on notable content from the same lengthy list of refs. When Salt and McCluskey work together to mock a claim of Ogham archaeoastronomy at a single site in West Virginia as an utter failure (implicit any other such claim elsewhere in the USA must be dismissed sight unseen as equally ridiculous), then choke off the discussion arbitrarily, and advise me to peddle third party evidence of Celts in America (based on 6 different working sites featuring Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma) elsewhere because it is not welcome in the article they have exclusively penned, that is no consolation. If they can justify an attack, they can tolerate a defense, as well. Or they should, without resorting to winning consensus to silence the messenger! -- Breadh2o (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this. This is the same time-wasting behaviour and exact arguments that appear to me to have been going on endlessly, despite multiple warnings. I think we have consensus for a topic ban on Breadh2o. Indef is fine with me. If he respects the ban, manages to keep from getting blocked on NPA/CIVIL violations, and becomes a productive Wikipedian, I would consider lifting the ban at a (much) later date. However, Breadh2o, if you keep yelling at people you're getting blocked. Consider this your last warning. And don't think you can go and try these same tactics on other articles. This warning applies across the board. To clarify if it's not clear to you: a topic ban means you are being asked to stop editing articles related to Archaeoastronomy. It is also preferred that you stay off the talk pages. If you violate this ban, you'll have your ability to edit the encyclopedia at all taken away by physical means (that's what a block is, you won't be able to edit anything on WP). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As kathryn says, this is another instance of the 'civil POV pushing' Raul654 (i think) essayed about, and well due for a resolved tag and implementation. ThuranX (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn's already notified Breadh2o of consensus. Am I right that all we lack is the resolved tag? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Kathryn, I have had enough, too. Steve is impatient to drop the hammer on me. And, I have had enough of a double standard where the antagonist, the contrarian, the non-credentialed contributor must STFU while the protagonist, the establishment, the credential authorities are forgiven for each and every indiscretion and disruptive tactic they employ because they're more valued by the system and must be welcomed and pampered. Above, I have raised many questions about WP policy or guideline violations which have been permitted to stand against me and my efforts. But these are inevitably ignored and my grievances, unaddressed. I didn't come to WIkipedia seeking prestige, accolades, or furtherance of any academic esteem. I'm the passionate, grassroots archaeoastronomer who doesn't belong to clubs or organizations, yet is productive and has special insights to contribute because I have the passion. If I behave myself by politely shutting up, kowtow to the will of the majority and obey the presumed infallibility and impartiality of the esteemed, neutral POV of two authoritative authors, then I guess that's being a good Wikipedian and might entitle me to be allowed to contribute to the article in the distant future, perhaps, but only if I accept surrender to authority and consensus. Consensus can be a good thing and it can be abused to silence valid and notable minority opinion. If I am unwelcome and WP:BURO is a frilly and meaningless guideline, then issue the resolved tag Steve is so impatient to see, to confirm his righteousness and my terrorism threat to his article. Otherwise, I am here to challenge what is imbalanced in the archaeoastronomy article, and I am simply not prepared to roll over and agree that what is going on with these two authors and their strict POV and restrictive abuses of content is hunky dory. It is NOT. As the advisory that heads this page says, "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." This may well apply as I have been ignored in defending myself and I have been issued a "final warning" ahead of a pending resolution to this thread, without resolution of what I've sought, such as mediation and questions regarding the other side's WP:OWN. and WP:IDHT disruptiveness. These are neither irrelevant, trivial nor unassociated to the attempts to silence me. I believe a double standard is alive and its application is unfair to me. -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SimpsonsFan08 sock block sanity check

Hi, folks. I'd just like input to make sure I'm doing the right thing here. SimpsonsFan08 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a few days for sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppets SimpsonsFan2008 (talk · contribs), HomerSimpson1996 (talk · contribs), and MrWP (talk · contribs) have all been indefinitely blocked. I dug a little bit into some contributions, found Connorjack (talk · contribs), and blocked it indefinitely. SimpsonsFan08 says that Connorjack should be allowed citing the clean-start-under-a-new-name section. 1) I'm not sure that all of this is exactly a clean start. 2) I'm not sure that any contributions of Connorjack required a clean start. 3) I'm not sure that a user who abuses multiple accounts and lies about the abuse should be allowed this extra account. Opinions? WODUP 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I'd been bolder and indef blocked to begin with. Users who sock abusively, as he did at his RFA (CU confirmed), waive the right to have alternate accounts and personally, with this guy's lying and squirming around, I'd ban. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Sounds like blatant block-evasion, from your description. Seems like an indef block candidate, considering the prior warnings and the promise not to do this again. Enigma ^message 07:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He just requested an unblock. Enigma ^message 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him a very straightforward question. Now let's see what will be his reply. Only a very positive reply can stop me from extending his block indef. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I noted on his talk page, he lies, gets caught, confesses, and then lies immediately thereafter. Also, it's pretty obvious to me that even Connorjack isn't his first account. WODUP 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the indefinite block. I had no idea that it went this far when I reported SimpsonsFan08 for using MrWP as a sockpuppet for nominating him for adminship. This is just ridiculous. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked by MBsianz. Rudget 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying I agree with it completely. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued vandalism of Tracy McGrady and possible sockpuppetry

All of the following users vandalized (diffs: [76][77][78][79][80][81][82]) Tracy McGrady between 05:36 and 06:21 UTC, continously:

• 71.29.225.106 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 140.247.133.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 98.199.170.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 68.90.232.43 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 98.201.34.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• Thedarklord666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (I suspect the sockpuppeteer)

What should be made of all this? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Page semi-protected for now. IPs in wildly different ranges, so deferring comment on that to someone with more experience with that topic and so forth. Rudget 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • They seem to all be in Dallas or Houston, Texas. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Makes sense, given what team McGrady plays for. :) Enigma ^message 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • What about Dallas? And why would Houstonians want to attack McGrady? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Dallas is a big rival. Some Houston residents are attacking him because he chokes every year in the playoffs, and I suspect some fans are sick of their star player being somewhat less of a star in the playoffs. Enigma ^message 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with User:R. fiend merging license plate articles

User:R. fiend has been unilaterally merging license plate articles and seems to have taken a very flippant attitude towards being asked to stop. People are working on both the individual state/province articles and the individual history of the state/province articles. I think further action is needed here. --Plate King (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Plate King, I suggest you take advice from your adopter, OhanaUnited, about this. However, my opinion, for what's it worth, is you could organize a request for comment about this issue to establish consensus, to prevent an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] password email

I just received this

From - Sun Apr 27 10:47:00 2008
X-Account-Key: account9
X-UIDL: 2295-1207339184
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org ([208.80.152.133])
by vms172063.mailsrvcs.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr  3 2006))
with ESMTP id <0JZZ00A6INEBZQ72@vms172063.mailsrvcs.net> for kww@xxx.xxx; Sun,
27 Apr 2008 09:39:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from srv170.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.170]:52682)
by mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <wiki@wikimedia.org>)      id 1Jq82d-0005Q7-K8     for kww@gte.net; Sun,
27 Apr 2008 14:39:48 +0000
Received: by srv170.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun,
27 Apr 2008 14:39:47 +0000
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:39:47 +0000
From: wiki@wikimedia.org
Subject: New temporary password for Wikipedia
X-Originating-IP: [208.80.152.133]
To: Kww <kww@xxx.xxx>
Message-id: <E1Jq82d-0005Q7-K8@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Someone from the IP address 4.154.2.232 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Kww" is "xxxxxx". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org

I immediately went and reset my password, but someone is apparently trying to hack me. Kww (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably worth noting that 4.154.5.186, very near this one, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Soccermeko, and many other addresses in that range have been used as socks by him. It's a dynamic pool, so no one is inclined to block big ranges of it.Kww (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This happens all the time, it's nothing to worry about. That kind of "hacking" (a big word for it) is easy to try, and impossible to do. Well, unless you happen to be drunk or something when you receive the e-mail, and actually do log in with your "new password". As long as you do nothing, you don't have a problem. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

There are two possibilities: 1)(less likely) someone has gained access to your e-mail account and is using that feature to change your Wikipedia password. 2)(far more likely) Someone who is otherwise completely ineffective is trying to make you nervous. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I figured the mailback defense would be enough. I just wanted to make sure that if something did happen, people were aware of the attempt. Probably just Soccermeko trying to get some petty revenge, and failing.Kww (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten it many times before. All they do is type in your username and then hit forget password at the login screen, then they cross their fingers that they get your password. But they never do. It only goes to the email account you used for WP, and unless they have that password or the email address (which is highly unlikely), they're unable to take over your account. Just shake it off, note the IP and give a warning at their talk page or if they're being a pain to you here (vandals, sockpuppets or the like), report them to AIV, because it's not tolerated. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Badger Drink

Is it appropriate to reply like this. The template was indeed justified as he was reverting good faith edits here and here using TW and leaving no edit summary. Matamoros (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be following the example set by one of our most experienced and respected admins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have informed the user of this thread. Come on guys, it's common courtesy. Bovlb (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Miss Derkins, in your haste to run to Miss Wormword, you forgot the courtesy of informing me. This makes it rather hard to argue that this is really about courtesy. But let's give this the benefit of the doubt, for the moment. Now, just what were those good-faith edits I so coldly reverted? Ah yes, POV pushing. No, wait - make that your POV-pushing. In the midst of a minor edit-war, no less, during which the rationale had already been explained. The terrifyingly uncivil edit summary was not even directed at you, as you were not the one who templated me in the first place. I therefore cannot help but stipulate that, much like the individual who channel-surfs for hours on end hoping to find something to complain about, you are simply looking for something with which to take offense. I urge you, in as civil a manner as is possible under these understandably trying circumstances, to kindly grow up. --Badger Drink (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chensiyuan

User has left several abusive messages in his edit summaries both here and on Commons over a series of IFD notices for image deletions. He is currently blocked on Commons for his pattern of abusive responses and I would like an administrator to look at his contributions here to see if the same remedy is necessary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the user's response when you raised this issue with them? Can you please post the link where you informed them of this thread? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't need the issue raised with him. There's no need for the over-polite "please post the link where you informed them of this thread". If they're rude, they know they shouldn't be. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I posted this notice encouraging him to be less hostile in his responses, but it was subsequently removed with a summary of "rvv". I didn't see a point in posting any further notices. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have final warned him, and by reverting the editor indicates that the notice is read, then there is nothing to do except wait for another example of a personal attack. At that point you can bring it back here or take it to WP:AIV. In the meantime there is nothing that requires admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incipient edit war at User:Videmus Omnia

[edit] User:CharlesFinnegan

CharlesFinnegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made fewer than a dozen edits, almost all of them to a policy page, including two reversions and a straw poll vote. Could somebody wash the socks, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It was actually 3 times, Sept, his 2nd, 3rd and 4th edits within the last hour or two to WP:MOSNUM blanked that section, while he was being warned on that talk page, and apparently saw the warnings. He had not received any user-talk-page warnings at that time though; I recently put the 3-RR warning there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd, 4th and 6th. But who's counting? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See section below. Nakon 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement re Wikilobby campaign

Following a review by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Moreschi and myself concerning the recent controversy over a pro-Israel lobbying group's involvement with Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign), we have posted a statement of our findings at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign. Please direct any comments to the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ottava Rima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. It's worth saying also that numerous people have tried to advise Ottava Rima that the approach that s/he employs is likely counter-productive. Here are just a couple of recent examples, in addition to my own comment cited above: "do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?"[83] "Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people"[84] "Your phrasing often comes across as combative, which hopefully is not intentional. A calmer tone will often get better result"[85] Again, it really is notable that in the main (if not exclusively) Ottava Rima has not taken that advice, and has apparently decided rather that defensiveness, or even offensiveness, is the better course. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] For those curious

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

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

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

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

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

These are only a few examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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