A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article.[1] If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Wikipedia policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225).[2] Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month [3]. It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "Example text", nor a "Example text" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The material is simply there to push your POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior than the fixed value definition. Stating that this does not belong in the speed of light, or anywhere for what matter, hardly consists of incivility. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb: I do not have and never have expressed the POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior to the fixed value definition. Please re-read my remarks. What was said was the the pre-1983 definition was an example of a definition that allowed the measurement of the physical speed of light because the metre was based upon wavelength. The 1983 definition allows more accurate length comparisons, but makes the speed of light an exact conversion factor beyond reach of measurement. Your interpretation of my statements is a non sequitor of the first rank; please learn to distinguish between what is said and what you want to believe. You create the impression of deliberate distortion to enable wild accusations.

That out of the way, I propose that you apologize for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and making the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, If you wanted a neutral look to your complaint, then why did you drag my name into it when I haven't edited the speed of light article since 12th August? David Tombe (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finell, The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of administrator Jehochman. Administrator Jehochman likes to voice his opposition to 'gaming the system'. But he has gamed the system himself in this case, by imposing sanctions on only one side in the dispute. That has given encouragement to the other side, and hence we are seeing bold warnings coming from the likes of Physchim62. This biased action from administrator Jehochman, which I understand was carried out arbitrarily against the wikipedia rules, has given the likes of Physchim62 an unwarranted sense of righteousness which makes him assume that everybody is going to believe that his side in the dispute is correct, without any doubt about it whatsoever. An impartial administrator attempting to end this edit war would either have dished out sanctions equally on both sides of the dispute, or else protected the page from editing until things cooled down. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the edit war. It would help if editors on both sides posted diffs as evidence. David Tombe, you are violating your topic ban when you comment on a dispute about speed of light. Next time you do so, you will be blocked. Attacking the administrator who sanctions you is a common tactic, one we understand how to deal with. Please understand that I'm not a robot. There's an actual person behind the screen name. Imaging that you're sitting at a coffee table with the person when you post and try to speak as you would in that situation. It will help you get along better. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may not always agree with what has done Jehochman (see above for an example), but I will support him on this point: you never get positive results by attacking an Administrator. Instead, you will end up like a player who argues with the ref: thrown out of the game. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be in fact what happens; but one hopes that justice can be seen to happen, that decisions are balanced, that appeals are possible, and that decisions will be supported by even handed argument and evidence. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

I also posted this on the wikiproject physics talk page:

"I think it would be helpful to discuss this with Brews again (he asked me to get involved on my talk page a few days ago, but I was too busy then), but this time with one new rule: Citing from sources is not allowed. So, we have to discuss from first principles and explain everything when challenged from first principles. This removes the freedom to interpret what some source says in some arbitrary way. Because most contributors are experts in physics, this can work. If someone is not an expert and makes mistakes he/she will be disqualified more easily (precisely because you can't hide behind sources)."

So, this means that we can see some very lengthy discussons with Brews again, hopefully more productive this time. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an argument at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). It does have sources, but I believe they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion, because all that is needed is velocity = distance/time. The key sources are to the original definitions from the BIPM and NIST. If there is a sourced point that requires some first-principles support, that certainly can be looked at. That discussion page can be used to present comments. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you submit speed of light to WP:FARWP:FAC and get feedback from uninvolved editors how to improve the article? That might be a good path forward. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, how many times to these two have to wind up causing massive WP:TLDR situations all over physics article talk pages and ANI? I can't believe these two are here again, and no doubt will once again jam up this page with so much blah blah blahing that they will once again succeed in paralyzing the conversation. Please guys, don't reply to me as I won't be checking back here and don't want you all over my talk page again, I just thought that needed saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jehochman: Speed of light in no longer an FA, so it is not eligible for WP:FAR. Furthermore, WP:PEER usually doesn't work well with technical science articles. And regardless of what any outside review concludes, Brews would continue his harangue that everyone else is wrong, or doesn't understand the issues, or is following the party line of the cabal of mainstream physics.

So, to all of you, what is the solution for dealing with someone like Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,[4]; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe? —Finell (Talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finell is beating his own drum, which is that Brews ohare is a nut case. That is his thesis, and any relation to WP speed of light is just to serve as fodder for his crusade. He picked up this banner from a few other editors and made himself drummer boy. He has never pointed out specifically any wording or argument that I have used to justify claims that I express a fringe point of view. What I have done is try to get sources and argument to replace ideés fixe and found that no amount of sources or arguments can succeed. It doesn't help that Finell continually picks things to argue about that either have not been said or say something different than he thinks they do. Brews ohare (talk)

Well had someone explained the problem above as directly & succinctly as you just did, Finell, maybe Brews ohare would have been topic banned by now. (I'm just a lowly Admin, so I don't know if I have the power to do it & since I'm involved it might be best if I don't try.) Until someone who has that power & is uninvolved comes along & topic bans him, tell him to stay off of your Talk page. I think you have the right to limit your exposure to an editor who is behaving in that manner -- as does any Wikipedian in good standing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct and succinct, perhaps, but largely fabrication. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c: I am a completely uninvolved editor w.r.t. the page and Physics wikiproject, but did happen to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Speed of light a few days back. In my opinion, Finell's description of the situation is exactly correct. The problem, is not that Brew's take on the speed of light is incorrect, rather it is a idiosyncratic reading (none of the sources he cites, actually support his position) and he is insisting that it be given (undue) weight in the article, including the lede sentence. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it:

Consider an editor insisting that we need to replace all uses of the term velocity on physics pages by "speed in a given direction" - the replacement wouldn't be wrong, just undesirable, non-standard and, ahem, plain crazy. Analogously, Brew has argued ad nauseam that c = 299 792 458 m/s is not the real speed of light in SI units, it is just the "SI conversion factor" and that this viewpoint should underly the writing of the Speed of light article. Again unjustified, non-standard, and plain crazy.

There is a bit more but hopefully you get the idea. IMO a topic ban or (at a minimum) restriction on talk page posts are long overdue. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare describes a content dispute, and characterizes it as "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other". That is not the case. The basic issue is one of explaining the implications brought about by introducing time-of-transit ratios rather than length ratios for determining lengths. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so far my proposed soluton is working ok. On the physics project talk page we have had some excellent input. Unfortunately, I still didn't have too much time yesterday (I'll try to give my own input later today). What we need are more first principles arguments like the one by BenRG, TimothyRias etc. see here.

What we do not need are comments like by Dicklyon saying that:

"Arguing from first principles has no place in wikipedia; we're about reliable sources. What's not OK is for Brews to push an interpretation that he has no source for; he has sources for bits and pieces of info, all of which is acceptable content, I think, but not for his idiosyncratic synthesis from those sources."

Because clearly that doesn't work. You don't get to the bottom of the conflict this way, as I explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His comment was correct. We can't just throw out WP:V because it's "too hard". We're not all physicists and we shouldn't pretend to be. Evil saltine (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he was completely wrong. Also, most contributors on that page except he and a few others have studied physics. And it were these people who by arguing on the basis of sources alone caused the discussion to go on and on in circles for a very long time.

WP:V is important for sourcing the final agreed verion of the wiki article. Discussions omn the talk page should not (necessarily) be shot down on the basis of WP:V alone. You have to be able to argue based on the whole body of a physics theory to correctly get to the bottom of what a source really indends to say. Simple quotes can be taken out of context. In the particular case of this discussion, I asked Brews to forget about his source and present his arguments form first principles, so that I can at least get a chance of what he means.

Of course, he can look things up in his source, what I mean is that he cannot say that X is true, because source Y says so. Instead he has to say that X is true and then dexplain why by, perhaps looking up in source Y what the argument is. If Y cites Z, he has to go to Z and in this way reduce the argument to a trivial statment based on the basic theory. So, he has to present the full argument from A to Z on the talk page, right in front of the other editors some of whom are professors, Post-Docs, and Ph.D students. Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that each source should be considered in context of the entire body of knowledge, as long as multiple sources may be used as part of that. I think Dicklyon was mainly responding to your statement "Citing from sources is not allowed." Evil saltine (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis has a very good point here. Arguing from first principles can straighten things out. More than that, a reliance on sources to the degree that simple syllogisms are unacceptable, and exactly the same wording must be found in a source is ludicrous, but often practiced when blows begin. And add to that the fact that many topics exist where the same exact wording is used with technically different definitions: then a source vs. source exchange gets nowhere.

So far as I can see the main problem with Count Iblis suggestion is that it works only among parties that are interested in getting to the bottom of things. The far more common experience is ego-tripping in which one or several editors want to score points, and will go to any lengths to do so, or form a WP:TAG TEAM. One symptom of these behaviors is the use of pejoratives to describe the opposite views (without any attempt to identify the criticized text, but only broad generalities, mostly incorrect, about what was said) and also vilification of the opposing editors, all known symptoms of WP:PUSH. For some reason this type of cat-calling is so much fun it attracts other editors like flies to dung, and soon they are all enjoying repeating each other, buzzing about, outdoing each other in extravagant invective.

Possibly a stricter enforcement of sticking to the discussion and not using cat-calling could ameliorate this problem. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguing from first prinicples" is an extraordinarily bad idea. In addition to being an essentially endless time sink (the filibustering mentioned much earlier in this discussion), it almost invariably leads to prohibited synthesis. Article contents, language, and arguments should reflect what reliable sources say on subject, not some wikipedian's argument from first principles. This is essentially Archimedes Plutonium redux. Quale (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. "Arguing from first prinicples" is vital on the talk pages to remove WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from the articles themselves. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Arguing from first principles on talk pages leads to talk pages like Talk:Speed of light. This isn't helpful for improving articles. Quale (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, the speed of light talk page proves my point. There was almost no discussion at all based on first principles there. What happened was that both sides were arguing from sources or other authorities (e.g. 1983 definition of speed of light). That caused the discussion to go round in circles for a very long time. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little discussion of sources. Most of it was just the editors' own reasoning. Evil saltine (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion never went beyond the basic dispute: 1983 definition of the metre that fixes the speed of light and then Brews counters with a reasoning taken form a source. It was never a discussion based on fundamental physics. The discussions there went nowhere.

Doing away with sources will actually restrict how you can argue, because you can only base whatever you say on the laws of physics. That's what we did on the wikiproject physics talk page and within two days or so, the issue has been cleared up at least I now understand what Brews point really is. It doesn't mean that I agree with Brews, or he agrees with me, but I now know that the core of the dispute is metaphysical in nature and closely related to dispute between the three authors of this paper.

So, we could write a paragraph in the article based on that article about the dispute on whether or not the speed of light is really a fundamental constant and within that paragraph there is some room to discuss the issue raised by Brews. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors confused about the issue could read the lead for the featured article from a few years ago, which seems to be nice and clear: "The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 186,282 miles per second). This exact speed is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light and not vice versa." - the current article talks about a fundamental physical constant. Thus the term is ambiguous - is it talking about the real measured speed of light or is it talking about the defined speed of light? Note that because a metre is also a defined unit (and uses how far light travels in a unit of time for that definition) that it is not possible to measure the speed of light in those units. This seems really clear to me, and I have no idea why other editors don't get it. Having said that, Brews needs to STOP, then formulate an idiots guide to why circular definitions don't work for measuring each other, then limit themself to a few edits per day to the talk page. And just not bother responding to people who are not helpful. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NotAnIP83:149:66:11: Thanks. Very sane advice. I wasn't aware of the earlier version, which, as you say, seems very clear and sensible. Brews ohare (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"discuss from first principles"

I have a long experience with Brews and his attempts to "discuss from first principles". Yes, I am trained in physics and understand this stuff, though I'm not a physics expert per se. But Brews's logical reasoning from good starting points has in several cases in the past led to downright errors and to some strange idiosyncratic views. This is what we seek to avoid by WP:V. I thought that Count Iblis's suggestion to argue without sources was quite absurd in light of WP:V; and it would not settle anything, since even people with good smart logic can see things different ways. I have no objection to including all points of view on the topic in the article, if they are verifiable in sources. But Brews make up his own point of view, and does a lot of WP:SYNTH, and that's why he needs to be throttled. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban of Brews ohare

Above, Finell said,

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,[5]; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe?

I am going to place a topic ban on Brews ohare from speed of light. This appears to be the consensus. Implementation of this ban will be delayed for a short while so that editors have a chance to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the article / topic ban. This can be mediated going forwards if party cooperates, but direct involvement has failed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; Brews' position can not be fairly characterized as a fringe POV. Clearly there are people here that agree with him. Are we going to ban him because the talk page is getting cluttered? That's what archiving is for. Evil saltine (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page disruption is a very valid reason for a topic ban. It is possible for an editor or group of editors to post so voluminously that nobody else can conduct a discussion or achieve a consensus. Which people here agree with him? Your opinion is important yo me. In order to gauge it properly, can you specify how familiar you are with this situation? Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 for one; User:David Tombe listed a few others. I have been keeping up on the debate on Talk:Speed of light. Evil saltine (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, as I told David Tombe on my talk page, I'm going to wait until tomorrow and see if Count Iblis' attempt at resolution is successful before considering any further action. Obviously if the parties can agree to get along, then that's the best result. Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; The problem is solved, in the sense that after some discussions with Brews on the wikiproject physics talk page, I have found a way to write what Brews wanted to write, but then in an acceptable way in the article (see my comments above for more details). Now, Brews presumably won't be 100% happy with that, but it is a precise sourced way of expressing his point. So, let's give this a chance. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to give this a chance as long as nobody else objects strongly to dropping the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong objection Unfortunately, attempts by several editors to appease Brews or reach some kind of compromise only result in a reduction in the quality and accuracy of the article for no real benefit. The prime example of this is that a couple of editors have suggested that we do not mention at the start of the lead that the speed of light has an exact value when expressed in SI units. This is a fact that, as editors of an encyclopedia, we have a duty mention, as is done on Britannica and was done in this article when it was an FA. Other compromises have also been suggested, such as giving an approximate value at the start then giving the exact value later, but all these suggestions have nothing whatsoever with writing a good quality article, they have only the purpose of appeasing one rogue editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with Count Iblis attempting this. Brews ohare (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban involving the topic of the speed of light anywhere on Wikipedia, except, with the specific advance consent of particular users, for user talk pages or other pages in user space of those consenting users. The small participation here in not representative of the overwhelming consensus (although not unanimity), as a glance at the article's talk page reveals. This is not just a recent problem: Brews has been at this for most of 2009. Further, individual users don't decide what WP:FRINGE is; that is a matter of policy to be decided based on what reliable sources have published. A topic ban is consistent with Count Iblis's proposed solution. If Count Iblis wants to discuss Brews's points with him and to bring to the article or talk page what Count Iblis is willing to stand behind, with the support of reliable sources, he may do that despite a topic ban on Brews. However, Brews's persistent, long term, tendentious behavior both on the talk page and in editing the article and on users' talk pages is sufficient to require a topic ban to end the months of drama. I "[object] strongly to dropping the matter". —Finell (Talk) 06:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - ohare is verbose and can be rude in the way he challenges some editors but the rudeness arises out of frustration that others do not understand or agree with his point ... however, he does have a point (I won't go into it here because this is not the place to discuss content). Ohare is an enthusiastic, good-faith editor who uses sources ... isn't that what wp needs? The main reason this has dragged on is that Hogbin and others express their disagreement in a somewhat demeaning and challenging way (crackpot physics etc) but continue to respond. If ohare is so wrong, why on earth do they not ignore his talk page expositions (and they are a tad repetitive) or respond with something short like "This is against consensus" reverting his edits when they are wrong ... or maybe building on his edits when they are only somewhat wrong. Ohare could, of course, help himself if he changed his editing style so that he used the preview button more and didn't repeat himself as much and, above all, stuck to content rather than personalities. My suggestion is that a completely independent admin offers to mentor ohare but please not a topic ban, it may be that topic banning Tombe was a mistake, do not repeat it here. Ohare has a lot to offer; learn to live with his idiosyncracies and wp will be the better. Abtract (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is the first time that I have voted for the ban of an editor on WP but in this case I see no alternative. Contrary to Abtract's suggestion above and as the record will show, I have spent nearly a year discussing this issue and a related one with Brews and have even set up a page in my user space for this purpose. The real problem is not just Brews' persistent edits (just look at the history of the page) but the effect that it has on other editors. New editors who come to the page naturally want to help and promote the spirit of compromise, this is how WP works, but in this case it just starts the repeat of a old discussion and, worse still, a flurry of misguided attempts to compromise in the article itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved

As I explained above, the discussions with Brews on the wikiproject physics talk page have more or less solved the problem. I'm not sure why Jehochman chooses to quote an out of date posting where my proposal to start discussions was criticized when a few days later it did have results. Also the so-called "consensus" includes the opinion of non-experts who were responsible for the mess on the speed of light talk page in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not placed the topic ban yet. If the editor and the other interested parties all agree that matters are resolved, then obviously the ban would not be needed. Can the relevant parties confirm what Count Iblis says here? Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the topic ban. Brews is sill adding his 'explanations' and 'clarifications' to the article all based on his personal opinions on the subject. Attempts at compromise do nothing but reduce the quality of the article. See my comments on this same topic above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote neither to support nor oppose a topic ban, but the problem is very far from solved. Just to give a hint of the tendentious editing and incivility of Brews ohare, here are a few diffs. This is a small subset, and the quotes don't even get into the extreme ownership issues in the article & article talk page that have been ongoing for months now.

• "probably four or five editors who cannot tie their shoes steamrollering a flatly incorrect statement into the intro."
• "There is no consideration for sources, logic or whatever: you just have to round up a lynch mob and away it goes."
• "simply subject to sneers from the civilized persons pretending to be editors."
• "dealing with completely intransigent editors suffering from both idée fixe and groupthink, and no concept of sources."
• "It's probably tendentious of me, but I attribute this to a lack of desire to really engage the issues (and the brain) and instead a preference for adrenalin and artful put-down."
• "A number of them are incapable of thought, and the rest are uninterested"
• "It is a really disgusting display of mob rule. The only reason to remove it is vendetta, I am afraid."
• "It was a bit of an eye-opener to find that some cannot understand plain English, and that some want only to attack me personally, nevermind the topic."

Combined with the complete lack of respect for others in this project as shown above, Brews ohare's editing practices on talk pages are awful. He seems unable or unwilling to use the preview button much at all, adding to the problems. Also, he far too often buries the content and signature of another editor, as is evident here, here, and here. Whether he simply doesn't know that obscuring others' comments in this manner is extremely rude or he just doesn't care, I have no idea. Certainly in the case of the last diff, it might have made it harder for a reader of this board to notice and check the diff where I claimed a personal attack.

Then there is the beauty on the article talk page that I undid here where Brews ohare moved my comment to be sandwiched between two of his, given the thoroughly dishonest impression that I was responding to him. The fact of the matter is not only did I not, but the last thing I intended to do was directly respond to this out-of-control tendentious editor. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Shuba, I think this is a lynchmob. I have seen a number of uncivil remarks and in fact most of the remarks made in opposition to Mr brews Ohare seemed to me to be mean and nasty, yet you are going to ban him. In my view he is the victim. This is in my opinion why wikipedia is a waste of time and users will never get a good experience here. You dont apply your own rules to yourselves but to people you want to be rid of because they seek to improve wikipedia instead of keeping it as mediocre as possible. You guys call people cranks and other nasty names, and nothing is done about those people. So I simply think wikipedia and the entire process is a fraud. When you ban editors it only demonstrates why wikipedia is failed enterprise.72.64.33.139 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments linked by Tim Shuba are from particular individual's Talk pages, not from Speed of light, and were expressions of my frustration experienced at Speed of light in trying to seek counsel from these individuals. They were not on the Speed of light because they were pertinent to my difficulties, not to that article. If Tim Shuba wishes to troll for insults, that is his business. I do not see why conversation between editors about the state of things should be subject to article Talk page guidelines.

On the other hand Tim Shuba's reversion of comments by me on Speed of light are a clear violation of article Talk page rules of engagement.

Numerous violations of WP policy in the form of refusal to address content, personal attacks, reversions without comment, etc. have been tolerated by User:Jehochman in the case of Finell, Shuba, Hogbin & others on Speed of light. I have not done that. Why single me out for administrative action?

The claim is made that I make too many edits on the Talk page. All or almost all of these are response to comments. They are not more numerous than the comments responded to. A simple count of my contributions exceeds that number only because I have edited my responses to fix typos or reword things more carefully. Without those corrections, I have only as many contributions as response to others dictated.

What should be done to fix matters at Speed of light is to enforce the WP requirements that discussion should implement WP:NPA and discussions should address content specifically (not in vague philosophical generalities), not address contributors' personalities WP:Talk. Brews ohare (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why a topic ban is a bad idea

I planned to write this as a comment above, but my text was a bit large and I needed to make it even larger to prevent it from being confusing. It is more of a general argument about when topic bans would be appropriate and why in this case it isn't. For argument's sake, I assume in my argument that Brews is wrong about the text he wants to edit in. My argument does not depend on the actual dispute itself, simply on the way it has been handled.

So, let's then analyze what really is going on. You have, say, 6 regular editors and one of them is the "odd one out", in this case Brews, who has a different view, uses the talk page a lot to put his view forward. Then, given that this is the typical situation in so many other wiki articles (typically not physics or math articles, but go to any article on some political subject, and you'll see what I'm talking about), I don't see how the 5 would have to make such huge concessions to the text as Martin claims above. The truth is that there are disputes between the 5 as well and Brews actually does have some limited support for his views (e.g. User Abstract supports Brews on some points and Dicklyon does not agree with Martin on everything). This makes it impossible for the 5 to make a stand against Brews. But it is Brews who gets blamed for the mess on the talk page by the editors who are tired of the discussions.

I think a topic ban is only appropriate when the 5 would indeed agree on some text for the article and be able to stick to it and Brews were to constantly revert that text. Or, in case of talk page disruptions, the 5 should first agree by consensus that discussions on certain topics are not productive and will be reverted. This is what the editors on the Global Warming page have done. Occasionally some regular skeptic raises a topic (but usually it is an anon) which is reverted. If Brews were to edit the talk page against the clear consensus, then the first time that happens his edits could be reverted, the second time an Admin could be contacted to give him a warning, the third time he could be brought here and then a topic ban could be discussed.

Thing is that Brews' discussions on the talk page were, as of yesterday, tolerated. Thus there are no reasonable grounds for some of the involved editors to come here and demand a topic ban. If we go down this road, then that would make it more difficult to be involved in topics where the roles are reversed. Can I behave like Brews on the Homeopathy page, which is edited primarily by people who believe in Homeopathy and who reject the validity of scientific arguments that show that Homeopathy is nonsense?

If I never engage in personal attacks, but simply very patiently start to argue my point over and over again, each time trying to find another source, another scientific argument, but to all the others my arguments seems to be the same every time (because I essentially argue for the same position and then, if you are tired about me starting to argue my favorite topic, you won't take notice of a slight change), will I be topic banned too when a few of my opponents come here to complain about me? Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis: Your final paragraph is a completely accurate description. Thank you. The answer to your question about your being banned is: yes, absolutely. There has been no even-handed administration of justice here at all. There has been no examination of the validity for complaints either, just counts. D Tombe was banned in exactly the same way that I will ultimately be banned, and shortly afterward, no doubt, Abstract. There is a pattern here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I think this dispute is more than we can handle here. There are signs of behavioral issues that will preclude resolution by mediation. I'm hereby lifting my topic ban on David Tombe, and requesting that the parties seek arbitration. We need a panel of esteemed editors to review the matter fully and decide what needs to be done. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that Brews is not alone in being the cause of trouble. Same with David Tombe. I've argued before that the two of them should be blocked or topic banned, when they were fighting each other in the centrifugal force articles. Now they're relatively aligned, and Martin Hogbin takes the other end of the field. None of them work toward compromise or consensus, and they torpedo every effort to settle on a way fairly incorporate all points of view. At speed of light, I think you'd have to topic ban the three of them to get that article to start to re-converge. An arbitration would have to include all of us, and would be a long painful mess, but it's probably what we need. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been blocked, again, for edit warring and is now requesting that he be unblocked, under the false claim that no one investigated the issue. As he has cleared the lengthy discussions multiple administrators have had with him,[6][7][8] would like to be sure that any reviewing admin for his unblock request make note of his talk page history and the full story before deciding whether to unblock him. Also good to note that he continues to deny he ever reverted despite proving he did so in his own "story" and his second round of retaliatory AIV reporting before he was blocked again[9][10] - he did the same the first time around, as well as make personal attacks against PMDrive[11])-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they didn't investigate. I said that my report against you was denied because we need to resolve the dispute ourselves, but you weren't. And you make me seem like I'm bad in your sent notice, like I'm lying about all this. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I never made a personal attack against the admin. I even pointed that out. I was just requesting that he not be a part of this since he said he had your back and even threatened to talk me to me again a while back. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acme Plumbing (talk • contribs)

"threatened to talk with you"? How is talking wrong? I also know what happened too because I was involved in it for a second. But then I just watched. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm smelling something fishy. Another account speaks for the user? Strange. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! I knew he was using an IP to edit, but this? Acme Plumbing seems to be a new account and possible been used in disputes before. One could AGF that he jumped in to copy/paste DBFan's responses from his talk page, but of course that begs the question of why? Hmm.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers, and a word of thanks is due for kindly disclosing the sock and block evasion at a main admin board. Everyone should be so courteous. :) Durova³⁰⁸ 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody going to block Acme Plumbing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on Acme Plumbing's talk page saying there is a discussion here and asking him/her to explain the edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Startling, their contribs seem to share no topics at all, but it's very likely a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• wonders if this is perhaps a PinkgirlXXX sock instead* Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Acme Plumbing is  Unrelated, just someone trying to be helpful by cross-posting DBZF's talk page comments. However, someone should ask DBZF about edit warring while logged out and the other two accounts operating from his home. Thatcher 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • ..."Curiouser and curiouser." Durova³¹⁰ 02:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the other two accounts..."? Well, well! Or as Alex would say... [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since DBZF shows the maturity level of a young child, the other accounts could easily be his/her parents, hence (presumably) the hesitancy in naming them. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBZF has said that both accounts belong to his brother, agreeing with the first part of Looie's comment. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the contributions of the accounts are fairly different, that's a plausible explanation for now. Thatcher 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBZfan29 does not appear to have learned his lesson from the last block and insists that he did nothing wrong. In fact, he repeatedly blames other editors for all of the "wrong doing," which is not a good sign. I see no indications that the editor will not return to the same edit patterns that originally lead to his blocked in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He keeps clearing responses he doesn't like from his talk page and demanding more opinions when I'd estimate some ten other editors and adminstrators have responded to him and offered him explanations. Instead he continues to claim he did nothing wrong and continues pushing his view, which to me indicates that he will just come back and continue doing the same edits and edit warring the minute he makes an OR edit that is removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that editors do have a right to remove comments from their talk page, I don't think they have a right to selectively remove comments that undermine his position while leaving others. --Farix (Talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can remove almost anything he pleases other than declined unblock requests. He may not understand, though, how this can do him more harm than help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know he can remove anything he wants, its just his selective removals followed by "I want more opinions" just doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. It seems like he still continues to deny that he did anything disruptive or wrong, and is continuing to dismiss every advisory message left for him. Man, I wish I had the power he seems to think I have :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I can edit myself, I want to conclude this whole issue by adding one last thing: Here's Collectonian's original report. I want to argue that what she considered reverts weren't reverts...

• 1st revert: diff - This wasn't a revert because she didn't add sources either and I said that there was a mistake on the DVD box.
• 2nd revert: diff (done as IP - admits it his him) - Okay, so I changed what she said, but I did change other things to that she didn't fix. If you consider that a revert, THAT'S ONE.
• 3rd revert: diff - I thought if I just noted the saga name changes without actually changing her edit, I'd be OK. Of course, she still thought this was a revert.
• 4th revert: diff - She said there were no sources, so I added them. That's not a revert. I listened to her. If one of the sources were bad, she should have said so instead of saying "I thought you wolud've learned by now..." And videos can be sources, I read the policy. After I said that, people failed to comment back. Fishy?
• 5th revert: diff - This was an edit conflict. I chose mine over hers. If you also consider that a revert, that makes ONLY TWO (NOT THREE)!

I just wanted to share that with you all. Remember, she's the one who broke the three-revert rule, not me. I listened to what she was saying. I even stopped after her fifth revert because I knew she would never let this go - EVERYTHING HAS TO BE HER WAY, EVEN IF IT'S OK ALREADY. Hopefully those caps will stick out to you all! Bye! DBZfan29 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – original complaint had no traction and discussion had reached the point where meaningful discourse had come to an end (amended by request on 5 Sept) Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original complaint was baseless. But problems in the approach of the complainant to the editing of the article remain. The advice given by admins below is being ignored, as Jaakobou continues to revert without engaging in talk. He also continues to make unfounded accusations, such as accusing me of "tag-team editing" in the edit summary there. Can someone please take a look and do something about this? Tiamut^talk 13:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the original complaint with no traction is being rehashed, along with other allegations, in this section below. Could this section be reopened and merged with that one? They seem to be closely related. Tiamut^talk 14:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Everyone walk away. Now. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Um, no. We have some DICK issues we still need to work out. For one, the MFD issue is still open, and Tanthalas' admin review is coming up. -Stevertigo 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Both of you said things. At this point nobody cares who started it. Would it not be better to just drop it and move on? Evil saltine (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes it would. Collapsed again. Everybody go and do something encyclopedic. Rd232 talk 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] See also: Talk:Barack_Obama § "National Socialism" Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [26] I really hope I don't have to write an explanation. The latter two bullet points put my point across better than any paragraph of wiki-legalese ever could. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I cannot see where you have informed the user of this report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I closed the MFD and deleted the page. Was there any other admin activity you required? Spartaz Humbug! 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] ? It doesn't appear to have been deleted yet Spartaz. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Deleted by Chris G. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restored by Chris G. wtf is going on? MickMacNee (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ah ha. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I fouled the close - too used to the script I use for closing AFDs I guess. Its gone now and I reclosed the MFD. Its still snowing and the page is never going to go into mainspace in the format it was in. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Now deleted by Spartaz. Isn't this like, wheel warring or something? Seriously guys, get your ducks in line. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] How can it be wheelwarring. I see two admins who speedied it and then reversed themselves when they saw the original speedy request had been rejected and one admin (me) who closed the MFD under snow and deleted the article under due process. The next stage for anyone who wants to contest this is to open a discussion at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] An 'attack page'? Really? About the only thing attacking Obama in that page was the title if you try really hard to assume bad faith, the content was actualy an attack on Conservatives if anything, and could well have been the making of a good article/section. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone that sees value in that insipid coatrack of an attack article has no business being a Wikipedia editor, to be extremely blunt about it. Haven't heard a peep from Stevertigo since the ArbCom case ended, this is an odd sort of acting out. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bull shit, to be even more blunt. It was called an attack page denigrating Obama, yet it was nothing of the sort. Unless you are of a mind to automatically assume the title was an actual judgement. Have you read the content? It is not an attack on Obama in any sense of the word, unless or until someone proves it gives massive UNDUE weight to the accusations, and thanks to Fox news half the world knows these comparisons have been made over the healthcare bill, that is obviously not the case. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] You're assuming good faith when there's no good faith to be assumed. Steve's POV-pushing was the reason RFAR/Obama articles was opened. This is just a run-around process and his sanctions to create a coveted "Criticism of..." article. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Maybe you should include such details then when filing an ANI report, instead of stating that you don't think you need to say anthing. If anything, why didn't this go to AE if the Obama case is relevant? Infact, I'm unsure even what you were requesting with this posting, deletion of the draft or action against steve or both? MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] And on looking it up, you and Steve recieved identical remedies for whatever you two got up to on Obama's article's, so I think anybody is entitled to assume good faith or bad faith equally on either of you. 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Because I think the facts should speak for themselves when I present a user seriously suggesting an article covering comparisons of a person to Hitler. And the ArbCom remedies did not reflect the disruption caused at all. The equality of sanctions is only because, I feel, that AC wanted to look politically neutral when they didn't really need to make the remedies equal at all. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] It should probably have been called Obama and the national socialism analogy to avoid the inevitable kneejerk reactions though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "othercrapexists" isn't exactly a compelling argument, mick. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Who's making an argument, I'm merely saying that might have been a better title to forestall the kneejerk reactions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tempting to just delete it now but, in all honesty, it will save a great deal of otherwise inevitable wikilawyering and general kerfuffle down the line if the MfD is allowed to run its course. CIreland (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's someone sensible among you? And you wrote this an hour ago - amazing that noone else here had the sense to find your comments sensible. -Stevertigo 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Spartaz Resolved  – No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: User:Neurolysis is a partisan in the related MFD and thus has no business closing this ANI thread. -SV Spartaz twice now has early closed an in-progress MFD discussion. His response to my request to reopen and restore the relevant non-BLP, draft, userspace subpage was "no." I'd hate to pull a Sanger here, but if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules? Its bad enough we have MFD's where people obviously don't read what they vote to delete. -Stevertigo 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think you got lost on your way to DRV and I'm considerably older then 12. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Its not a DRV issue at this point. It's about you, your pre-emptive/interrupting/disrupting action, and your non-responsiveness - such that might demonstrate the need for people to be at least.. <this high>.. to be an admin. 14 maybe? -Stevertigo 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That was the most inappropriate comment I have read in a long time. You should really think before you speak, Steve. — neuro(talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well, if he hadn't acted out of line, he wouldn't be in tears right now. -Stevertigo 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wasn't this just being discussed above? In other words, it wasn't necessarily out of line. I would suggest some striking on the inappropriate comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Where is this discussed above? And how is this above discussion somehow a validation of the appropriateness of nullifying another discussion? -Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The correct venue to discuss the close of a deletion discussion is DRV. ANI is for drama and since you decided to preemptovely reverse my first close without the courtesy of even telling me on talk page I would suggest that you would do well to look at your own contribution to harmony and promoting good faith. Where are you getting the nonsense about my age from? I',m not crying, I'm not upset and I'm not a teenager. You make yourself look stupid carrying on like this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1) (Was added to above comment, but preempted by conflict): You can of course redeem yourself by just doing as I requested - what I shouldn't have had to request in the first place. 2) You had early closed the MFD just as I was posting my comment there. I did not need to inform you on your talk page - I noted my reasons in the comment line. 3) "harmony and good faith" - don't premptively close things and you will also be a contributor to these.-Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Or, you could have saved us said drama by not creating such a piss-poor article that you knew would never have made its way into mainspace in the first place. I fail to see how your actions today can be described as anything but trolling. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "A piss-poor article" it is not. It is a non-BLP, draft, in my userspace. And I fail to see how wanting to make at least one comment on the MFD before it getting deleted is "trolling," or how what your doing now can be anything but. -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] You must be kidding me. A partisan in an MfD? Now I've heard it all. — neuro(talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well you did make a comment there did you not? Hence, why pretend to be neutral here, such that would give you standing to close this thread also? -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That comment means I just reversed your thread closing, and you got yourself your own ANI section. -Stevertigo 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] well, technically he got himself his own subsection. just saying. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] To throw off a quick reply to Steve, at no point have I pretended to be neutral. You might want to check on your use of the word 'partisan'. — neuro(talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Good. Then the point of all of this is: Don't close threads while they are still running, for whatever reason. This is a principle that goes way back to the beginning of talk pages: Don't alter other people's comments, and don't try to derail discussions by being a troll or a process dick. -Stevertigo 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] User:Tanthalas39 User:Tanthalas39 wrote: "All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked." - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. -Stevertigo 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] See meta:Don't be a dick. lifebaka++ 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) User:Stevertigo wrote: "if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules?" - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. — neuro(talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lol. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Tan | 39 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec)You mean the "Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move" part? The key there Steve is that it says "usually"; it doesn't say "always". You're in a hole, bud. Stop digging. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, telling someone not to violate DBAD is not the same as what Tanthalas said, which was to call me a "total dick." I of course am doing my best to refrain from using similar language. -Stevertigo 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Man, just drop it and walk away. DRV the MfD close if you feel like it, but continuing here isn't gonna' make anything good happen for anyone. lifebaka++ 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't get your threads confused. This one is about Tanthalas' foul NPA-violating mouth.-Stevertigo 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] If this fucking thread is about my fucking mouth, you've been fucking misinformed that Wikipedia is somehow fucking censored. Get over it. Tan | 39 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep talking. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Will somebody please collapse this mess? — neuro(talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why? It's almost an Arbcom case. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV

As there is no appetite to resolve this here, I've filed a DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. It might be helpfull if some kind soul does the temporary restore jazz, to help those without magic powers to see for themselves what was and was not on this page and why it needed to be spirited away into the night with such haste and accrimony. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest against the temp restore, simply due to the number of people already shouting BLP. I am happy to email the code from the last version upon request, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest

This was intended to be a "This user is doing something really and obviously inappropriate in an area subject to special sanctions for violating BLP" thread that needed no explanation. But obviously BLP doesn't apply to the President of the United States! To be honest, I'm extremely dismayed at people even considering covering these claims. Our legal counsel will be crying himself to sleep again... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 12, 2007 User:MatthewSMaynard made Jackbooted Thug, and made it a redirect to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, diff. Thanks to the alertness of User:IvoShandor, I was made aware of this and have changed it to a redirect to Thug for now. I checked the 3 most recent months for hits on this title. The most were 27 in June 2009, while July and August had only 11 and 12 hits each.

My initial thought was just to delete the page altogether, but I thought I would wait and ask here for consensus. It does not get a lot of hits, but it does get some, so perhaps it should stay as a (protected?) redirect.

I am also wondering what sort of actions beyond a warning (if any) should be taken with regards to User:MatthewSMaynard. After I post this I intend to leave a note on his talk page directing him here. A quick check of his recent contributions shows he is not very active. I have not gone through all of his contributions to look for more nonsense like this, or his talk page history to see if he has received warnings.

Your thoughts? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user ID was created almost exactly 4 years ago. The "jackbooted thug" redirect was created in summer of 2007, as you noted, so a warning about it seems a tad late. The user has had a grand total of 2 edits in 2009, so either he's mostly editing under a different user, or is just an occasional drive-by. He's obviously a gun lover, which his latest edit indicates, and hence I don't think it's a compromised account. But it bears watching. A warning at this point would be a more generic warning to watch out for POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a valid redirect using a valid search term. In the firearms community, the BATFE is almost exclusively referred to as a group of jackbooted thugs. This is a notable term as its use in a fundraising letter from the NRA caused President George H.W. Bush to resign his membership in that organization. Why does the redirect so trouble you? L0b0t (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a POV-pushing term. Can you demonstrate that its origin and sole usage is by the NRA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec w/ Bugs) There's likely an article to be had on this. Meanwhile, if sources can be found to support the redirect and the article itself notes the term, it can stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked and neither the word "jackboot" nor the word "thug" appears in the current version of the ATF article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put the jackboot on the other foot, how about if we create a redirect for Redneck gun-freak to National Rifle Association? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, if the sources are to be had, which is to say, if the term has become widely noted as popular jargon for members of the NRA (or whatever), it can be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point of the "Neutrality of redirects" section at WP:REDIRECT, but at some point there is a line drawn between non-neutral terms to direct users to article and outright pejorative attacks. "Jackbooted thugs" doesn't seem to be specific enough to any one group or movement, it is more commonly used to refer to any group, government, organization, etc...perceived as heavy-handed or oppressive. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sources would at least need to show that such a term was widely used/noted in published coverage of the topic to which it was redirected, such as Dittohead. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Bugs, your redirect sounds fine too except for the obvious fact that most NRA members are not southern or even English farmers in Southern Africa (redneck comes to us from rooinek, a Boer slur against the English) Having several friends & family members who are FFL holders, I can assure you that the BATFE (esp. in the 70s-80s) acted like stormtroopers, showing up at one's house in the wee small hours, handcuffing license holders to chairs while agents conducted inventories of license holder's firearms. This situation got so bad that Reagan made a campaign promise to do away with the BATFE (he broke his word). Then in 1995 (IIRCC), Wayne LaPierre sent out a letter in which he referred to BATFE agents as "Jackbooted government thugs." Now, as far as I an tell, the term jackbooted thugs has been used since (at least) the 1960s to refer to oppressive appendages of officialdom so the term itself could use a discrete article or at the very least a mention in BATFE, Thug, Jackboot, etc. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is actually already covered at Jackboot so I will change the redirect to point to that article. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To redirect such an obviously biased and inflammatory term to a government agency is nakedly obvious POV-pushing. Some of us consider the NRA itself to be the "jackbooted thugs", but that's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could balance things out out redirecting Floyd R. Turbo to the NRA. PhGustaf (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freakin' A, Bubba. I was also thinking maybe we should redirect "Treason" to "Confederate States of America". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to redirect Open Dates in October to Wrigley Field. --Smashville^talk 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is fair and proper to create helpful redirects to perpetuate rhetorical hyperbole, there are a number of helpful lists out there: List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, List of religious slurs, etc. The subject redirect may be entertaining in some sense, but really, should WP be selling woof tickets? Steveozone (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man. I was all like, "what the hell is a woof ticket?" when damned if woof ticket isn't a blue link. Obviously there are gaps in my education. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, thar be some gems out there. If you didn't know it, but get it having read it (before writing it), ain't Wikipedia grand? [ ;-) ] Steveozone (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole episode is pretty silly. A quick Google News Archive search will show the RS references to the term from 1995, even if the memories of many here may not extend back that far. L0b0t's quite correct: it was a notable incident that should be covered somewhere, although covering it in Jackboot, as opposed to the NRA and/or ATF articles seems counterintuitive. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk 01:13, 5 September 2009}}

This is a blanking of a Top priority and High priority article with a personal attack in it. If you look through the history, a group of five editors, Alefbe, Kurdo777, Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop, have been pushing for a removal of the Persian Empire page in various ways.

The first time this was undone was by Wizardman. This was reverted by Folantin, claiming that there was consensus. The page, before her revert, reveals Dbachmann at 14:05, 15 August 2009 stating that the page should merely be renamed, R'n'B at 09:26, 21 August 2009 saying that "rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other" and arguing for the page to be met with a better summary style but kept. Then there is BritishWatcher at 14:33, 21 August 2009 saying that the page should not be blanked.

It is clear from the talk page that there was no consensus at the time. Afterward, myself and others, including Shoemaker's Holiday, NuclearWarfare, Xashaiar, Warrior4321, Dekimasu, etc (at least 8 in total) stating that the page should not be turned into a disambiguation page or a redirect. There have only been five editors claiming that it should be, and they are constantly edit warring and fighting against consensus. Folantin, Fullstop, and Dbachmann have a very long history of interacting and working together to push the same views on multiple pages as you can see here and on their talk pages. Alefbe has a long history of pushing his POV at various Iranian related sites and Kurdo777 is a Kurdish POV pusher with an anti-Iranian agenda that has been criticized for using sock puppets and violating our policies on content many times before. It seems clear that these users would rather edit war and attack others in order to push their POV than actually deal with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is not about content dispute. Alefbe (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, Ottava's claims are clear examples of Ad hominem and should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy (this is the only part of the dispute which is relevant to the admins). Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava is just trolling and should be sanctioned. He has no interest in Iranian history whatsoever. He's just there to disrupt because he has a grudge against me over his failed RfA (this can be documented with evidence). The one feature members of the "cabal" he is alleging have in common is that they have all spent a lot of time contributing to articles on the history of Iran. The same cannot be said about some of Ottava's "supporters". It's time for a ban on OR for his constant violations of WP:POINT.--Folantin (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but did you honestly suggest that you have the right to WP:OWN a page and tag team simply because you work in an area a lot? Furthermore, you edit warred to promote this POV on a lot of pages I am involved in. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ottava, you have a grudge against me. That's the only reason you are there. Articles are generally best edited by those with some knowledge of the subject. You have demonstrated a woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN applies to groups of editors just as much as it does individuals -- even people who in your view have a "woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history" are allowed to edit there by default. Ottava and others have the same right to edit such pages as you. — neuro^(talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise stalking was allowed now. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that I have seriously edited for a long time. As can be seen, Folantin came onto the page at 15:45, 21 August 2009 and altered the title away from "Persian Empire" on a link with an edit summary (→1730s: sp. per Wikipedia article. Persia=Iran). It was reverted after Wizardman restored the Persian Empire page back to what it was. She reverted again with an attack on my understanding of 18th century history. As you can see, there is no "stalking" going on. However, Folantin does have a history of going to pages I edit and disrupting. This can be seen at Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been editing articles relating to Ariosto long before you turned up, e.g. [27] --Folantin (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you never showed active interest until after I was expanding the page. Making one little change is far different than attacking someone who was fixing the page. Hell, you never showed any actual active interest on that page besides some of the most minor changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided more than enough sources on the talk page verifying my statements there, and if Arbitrators or anyone else in high status would like to query me on my academic background and possible post-graduate classes I may have taken in the area of the topic to verify that it is not just some "random" subject for me or something I don't know about, they can feel free to email me. Most Arbitrators should already know my personal information, but I can forward more information verifying this in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, because there's no way the following statements (a brief sample of your gaffes) can be justified: "The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided many sources verifying my claims. But ANI is not about content, it is about actions and edit warring. Please stay on topic instead of trying to derail this like you did with any discussion on the Persian Empire talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constant page blanking and edit warring is not a content dispute. It is a major policy violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all there is to say about this is that Ottava is trolling the page (and now forum-shopping about it), but is about to hit 3RR, which is why we have 3RR, so the problem is going to take care of itself. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would redirecting the article Persian Empire to an article on the "first" Persian Empire make sense? And secondly, why was the edit summary "reverting unproductive edit from unproductive editor" used? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence of Ottava's trolling. When I pointed out the use of "Persian Empire" in the current version of Encylopaedia Britannica, he stated, "Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources." [28]. A few days later he started a section discussing how he was going to use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source. So the up-to-date Britannica and Encyclopaedia Iranica (dismissed by Ottava as "not a reliable source") are irrelevant, but a 100-year-old work is worthy of consideration? Ottava doesn't actually care what he says. He just wants to create drama and get his way no matter how much time he wastes.--Folantin (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1911 source was used to point out a pre-modern source. There is a major difference from using an old source to show how the term used to be used extended back into history and a modern source in order to claim how the source -only- should be used. Furthermore, why do you keep trying to dodge from the edit warring aspect and the lack of consensus for your version while edit warring to keep it in? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of OR's grudge against me. Significantly his very first edit to Talk:Persian Empire was to accuse me of "disruption" (even though I've edited at least a dozen articles on Iranian history) and call for me to be banned [29]: "However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place". This is clear violation of WP:TALK, yet it is a threat Ottava will repeat many, many other times in the course of the debate. (of course, he's made worse threats during the course of the same debate, some of which have ended up on ANI [30]). --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we not consider the reversion of an Arbitrator in good standing, Wizardman, as disruptive when he makes it clear that there was no justification for a large scale blanking of a page on the talk page? Folantin, it is clear that your behavior was highly inappropriate and no amount of deflections or the rest can hide from that. You edit warred a vandalistic act against an Arbitrator in good standing without even having the decency to try and talk about it first. That is highly inappropriate conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually understand Wikipedia? Arbitrators have no more authority over content than anyone else. Wizardman was not there as part of ArbCom, he was there as a private editor. He made no contribution to the discussion on the talk page before he reverted me. I asked him to do so because the article was undergoing an overhaul [31]. I haven't edited the page itself in two weeks so your constant demands to have me "banned for edit-warring" are simply evidence of your harrassment of me. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is this - you can bash me all you want, but you have no grounds to claim that Wizardman was acting inappropriately. As such, you have no argument to justify your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava -- would you please listen to me if I make a suggestion? -- When you encounter someone who disagrees with you on something, large or small, content-related or policy-related or anything else, would you please strive to treat the editor with whom you disagree with dignity, respect, and decency, in accordance with the Golden Rule and, I believe, our policies? I see you shrilly calling for various people in the last couple weeks to be banned, and in one case you threatened to call someone's school because you'd "discovered the new Essjay" -- please, please, please dial it back before something bad happens? Do you really want other people to treat you that way? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus, you are not a neutral party, so please don't pretend to be one. Your characterization as things like "shrilly" do poorly for you, as they don't represent anything close to the truth. And "threatened to call", that is a fine way of completely misrepresenting a situation. What I want is for people like you to stop violating our rules, making false accusations, and making up things simply to defend a friend. It is 100% obvious that the five listed were edit warring in a blanking of a top priority page. Your ignoring of that is telling. You and Folantin and anyone else can try and hide from the issue, but it is blatant to any objective observer. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's blatantly obvious is that you are prepared to disrupt Wikipedia in the pursuit of your own grudges. It's obvious it's personal. Here are a selection of your comments about me: "You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago." [32]. "Folantin, I am going to call you a liar" [33]. Bizarre accusations that I am a Georgian show you are desperate to smear me with anything that comes to hand [34] [[35]--Folantin (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, are you saying that Wizardman is now under my payroll and that the page was originally created just to spite you, and that his revert was to do the same too? Once again, you are trying to hide from the fact that you are a disrupted user that edit warred on that page and that you have a history of doing that to articles at the fringe noticeboard and elsewhere. If anyone needs proof to see how badly Folantin tries to manipulate things, check the claim that I said that Folantin was a Georgia ("accusations that I am a Georgian") with the link. I never said anything about their ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(We will return to The Young and the Relentless after this commercial break)

Geez...no kidding...I honestly don't even know where to begin here. Help! --Smashville^talk 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about blocking Ottava Rima for a short period of time for personal attacks and disruptive editing? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this based on the other events of the last 24 hours, alongside this. Jeni ^(talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, Jeni. Tan | 39 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly entitled to state my opinion. And I have expressed it in a reasonable and civil manner. Are you trying to censor me? Jeni ^(talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not trying to censor you. Perhaps censure you for jumping in to a discussion that you weren't involved in and waving your "I support a ban!" flag about an editor with who you clearly have a grudge. It's possible to be technically civil but ultimately disruptive. Tan | 39 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't suggest I have a grudge without providing evidence to back it up. Its only reasonable I notice this discussion, after all, ANI is still on my watchlist from the previous Ottava thread. This just hammers home the need for action. Jeni ^(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus has a long history of tag teaming with Folantin, which can be seen at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the smears keep coming. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that he did not edit that page? Are you claiming that you two have not worked on many topics together? That you two haven't spent a lot of time at the fringe noticeboard together? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How utterly predictable. Indeed, some of Folantin's interests overlap with mine, and we've edited some of the same pages (I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers, though). Exactly how does this prevent me from forming an opinion that Ottava Rima is a tendentious editor whose personal attacks are irritating and block-worthy? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some? You sure do have an odd definition of the word. It doesn't take much to see that glancing at most of those pages show a lot of constant backing each other up, answering for the other, etc. You aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is definitely a good one to see how neutral you are to the users here. Or this one, another fine meat puppeting. Or this, surprising how so many of the same names keep appearing. Another. I can go on. There are many wonderful ones and this hasn't even touched the noticeboards that have a lot of reinforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's awesome that statements like "you aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite" and unsupported accusations of meatpuppetry aren't covered by WP:NPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and unsupported accusations" I'm sorry, but those links are clearly visible for everyone to see. That means that you are lying or you failed to see what you were responding to. Either way, your comments are inappropriate and make you look very poor especially when the links show that you have acted highly inappropriately for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and now an accusation that I'm a liar. Thanks for maintaining the elevated tone of discourse around here. Pray tell, what highly inappropriate behavior are those links supposed to show, exactly?

Also, if you're going to accuse me of failing to see what I was responding to, you might want to note that I said "I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers". Now, your little "wikistalk" page might show that Folantin and I have more _articles_ in common than I thought, but I don't see how our editing of Athena, Cadmus, Orpheus, and Corinth is problematic. I'm sure you'll come up with something, though!

And I repeat, even if I share editing interests with Folantin and Dbachmann, how does that prevent me from coming to my own independent opinion that you're a tendentious editor who engages in unjustified personal attacks? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point

The matter has been ignored: 1. the Persian Empire page is still blanked as a redirect against consensus. 2. this has been edit warred back in against consensus. 3. the page was protected many times because of this edit warring removal of the page. The five users listed above are intent on edit warring to their version no matter what and not discussing how to actually improve the page. The page is a top priority and high priority page, and overwhelming consensus is that an encyclopedia article is needed on the term. WP:VAND makes it clear that blanking is the large removal of content from an article without discussion and going against our policies. This fits and these individuals are edit warring in a vandalistic action. This must be addressed by admin. I would recommend either blocks or probation against people blanking the page under threat of a block if they do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No the matter is your appalling behaviour once again. Since ANI is the chocolate teapot of Wikipedia noticeboards, I imagine this will end up being marked "resolved" with no action taken against you because you seem to have carte blanche to behave however you like. ("The page is a top priority and high priority page." Um ,it's been marked for clean-up and unverified claims since March. You only saw it as a "priority" once you noticed me editing there). --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I made you, Dbachmann, and Alefbe edit war and blank a page against both consensus and our policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and undid it, a sourced article of a well known empire shouldn't be redirected. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Uninvolved editor who just noticed this) --Rockstone (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have read the arguments on the talk page before you did that. The whole page is simply a content fork of History of Iran. Far from being "well sourced", it contains multiple errors. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin's claim that this is a content fork or copy of the History of Iran page has been pointed out as 100% wrong, since it covers material from History of Afghanistan and many, many other pages that the History of Iran page does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: ANI is not the right place for discussing the content of pages. For that, you should go to their talk page and read arguments of others and then elaborate your justification there (before doing any drastic edit in that page). Alefbe (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Alefbe just edit warred on the page again. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of two issues

There are two issues we need to seperate here, because the matter is getting confused...

1. Should the article "Persian Empire" be redirected to the Acheaminid Empire, or should the old article which discusses all various empires which have occupied the area of modern Iran be there instead.
2. Has Ottava Rima engaged in personal attacks and incivility

I posit that the main problem here is that, from what I can tell by looking at the talk pages, and most importantly per WP:PRESERVE, there does not appear to be a compelling consensus for replacing the old content with a redirect, and without preserving the old content in another article. If the Persian Empire title SHOULD be a redirect, then something needs to be decided with how to handle the content that was removed in making it a redirect. Thus, the gist of Ottava Rima's objection is compelling; the redirect does appear to be a problem. AND YET, I find that Ottava Rima's behavior here is a major problem; in that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks in trying to defend their position. Calling other editors names like "POV pusher" is unacceptable. In conclusion, the article should probably not be a redirect, thus I agree with Ottava Rima, and yet I find his behavior to be reprehensible in the way that the issue has been handled. --Jayron32 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content is available elsewhere at History of Iran, Achaemenid Empire etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I kinda see that. Let me change my proposal then; the Persian Empire should probably redirect to History of Iran, since THAT article is the one that covers all of the various states that have been known to history as "Persia". I think the major concern, since WP:PRESERVE does not seem to be as big of a problem as I thought, is the singling out of a single Iranian empire to be the target of the "Persian Empire" redirect. Why not just redirect the article which describes ALL empires in the area of Modern Iran, and let the reader figure out which "empire" they want. Now that I see that most of the content WAS redundant, I can see where a redirect would be a good idea, but the target appears to be a problem. --Jayron32 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, the Persian Empire deals with the History of Afghanistan and other pages and cannot be redirected to the History of Iran nor is the content the same. Folantin's claiming of this over and over has been proven as incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"n that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks" NPA says that a personal attack is only one that does not focus on action. POV pushing by definition is an action. POV pushing is -exactly- what happened, as edit warring and blanking of pages based on a POV that is not accepted by consensus is POV pushing. Jayron, please read WP:NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA states clearly to comment on the content, not the person. If you feel that the content that they propose violates WP:NPOV, then state "This content violates NPOV and should not be the way it is". When you call someone a name, then you cross the line, regardless of what that name is. You will stop calling people names, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You can raise problems without resorting to name calling. --Jayron32 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, commenting on the person would be calling them ugly or stupid. Saying they are pushing a POV is describing an -action-, not a physical attribute. And calling someone a name? Please, there is no way you can stretch that one, as there is even a major essay about calling something exactly what it is when they are violating a rule. I think you need to refresh on your policy understanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery. Your smears (e.g. the ludicrous allegations about my membership of Project:Georgia) are clear evidence you came to that page as part of a personal vendetta. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Ottava). Essays, even popular ones, have no bearing on the application of policy. NPA, which is policy, clearly states "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." (bolding mine). Saying User:X is a <BLANK> is never acceptable, regardless of what <BLANK> is. Just because you do not want your actions to be personal attacks does not mean they are not. Insofar as refering to other editors as "POV-pushers" will only escalate conflict, and serves no purpose except to disparge the people who hold a different opinion from you, this action is not good. Repeatedly claiming over-and-over that such behavior is perfectly OK does not make it so. --Jayron32 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, did I say essays had weight? I did not. So why would you mention such a thing? It is quite simply that NPA makes it 100% clear that it does not deal with what you claim it does. NPA requires an attack on their -non- Wikipedia self. Characterizing -any- on Wiki action is not a personal attack. To claim otherwise is so absurd that if you honestly believed the above to be true, I would ask you to risk your admin status by putting yourself up for recall and state that you believe the above to be what NPA stands for. You will be opposed so fast and removed from admin status that Wikipedia would probably be better to have one less admin with such a poor grasp of the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to do it, but looks like Tan got to it first...the page has been protected while we settle this here. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: Topic ban

The page is protected again. I propose a topic ban for the editors involved in the edit-warring and most contentious elements of the discussion, for a period of one month, enforced by block if necessary. These editors are Folantin, Ottava Rima, Alefbe and Dbachmann. The pages effected are Persian Empire and Talk:Persian Empire. Unfortunately, there has been little if any progress during this extended dispute. It has been personalized to an extent that resolution is unlikely to occur with the current cast of involved editors. Nathan ^T 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history again. There is a clear difference between my reverts and the constant tag teaming destruction of those. Furthermore, I had the vast majority of consensus behind me, and WP:VAND includes a nice section on -blanking- which says that reducing the page is vandalism. Check the Edit war page to see that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nathan, my revert is the same as yours, as you said: "(Reverted to revision 310386236 by John Kenney; This version has the most support; please don't remove 90% of the text of an article without advance consensus. (TW))" So, if you want to lump me in with a topic ban, you would have to lump yourself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented arguments based on my knowledge of Iranian history on the talk page with sources. I have made major contributions to most of the articles on the Safavid shahs of Iran. I have not edited the article for two weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to the encyclopaedia on a topic I know about and on which Ottava has demonstrated his complete incompetence? Alefbe and Dbachmann have also edited many Iranian pages. I find your suggestion a ridiculous application of the fallacy of middle ground and I don't regard you as a neutral party to this case since you have been in e-mail contact with Ottava. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan: You and Dbachman have both reverted that page once. The difference is that Dbachman has been previously invloved in Iran-related pages and you haven't. Also, Dbachman has elaborated his proposal in the the talk page and has justified it (but you hadn't elaborated your justification before reverting that page). So, how do you justify your proposal? Alefbe (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've received one e-mail from both sides of the debate, and sent one short e-mail in response (not to Ottava). I have participated in the discussion, if not (in my opinion) as a party to the dispute. I don't propose the topic ban merely to prevent edit-warring - that can be accomplished by protection. The purpose of the topic ban is to separate the people for whom discussion has consistently been heated and personalized. I'm not arguing that all parties are equally culpable, making a claim on personal knowledge of the subject or determining whose expertise in this area is superior. The idea is to allow the article to be discussed and improved without inflamed and personal debate, not to punish any editor for any specific infraction. Nathan ^T 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about personal attacks, they should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy and those who have committed that should be warned or blocked for that. Your topic ban proposal doesn't solve anything in that regard. The thing is that by looking at your proposal, it's obvious that you have listed those who have participated extensively in its talk page and you have forgotten that among those who participate in edit war, those who have elaborated their reasoning are more justified. So, among Dbachman, you, Durova, Rockstone35 and others who ahve participated in reverting the page, drastic edits of someone like Dbachman is much more justified than edits like [36] [37] and [38]. Alefbe (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "personalisation" began with Ottava Rima, as has been clearly demonstrated. That, coupled with his extreme incompetence in Iranian history, should have been enough of a clue to admins. But, as we saw with the lack of action regarding the John Kenney incident arising from the same page, Ottava has carte blanche' to behave as he likes round here. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a topic ban is moot anyway, as the page is fully protected for a week, if these issues continue beyond that week, then perhaps its a better time to look at it. Jeni ^(talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not moot, as the proposal extends to the talk page, which isn't protected (and is putatively the primary way of resolving the conflict). Tan | 39 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the context of the discussion and the history of the debate, banning Nathan himself (from that topic) is much more justified than banning Dbachman. Alefbe (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the protection is a better option than the topic ban, as it allows these users to try to discuss the way forward! Jeni ^(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. I was merely saying that proposed topic ban isn't "moot", as it would make a significant difference in the situation. Tan | 39 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the history so people can see who did what, when, and what fell under our policies as appropriate or not:

• 16:43, 20 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 16:02, 21 August 2009 Wizardman Restores page.
• 16:03, 21 August 2009 Folantin Deletes page.
• 20:17, 21 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page.
• 20:52, 21 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 13:42, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page after getting consensus against the removal of text.
• 15:29, 23 August 2009 Fullstop Deletes page.
• 16:06, 23 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 17:37, 23 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 23:04, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 23:12, 23 August 2009 King of Hearts Protects page.
• 07:53, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page when it comes out of protection saying "The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense"
• 15:36, 27 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page saying "subjectivity is not a justification to commit vandalism by blanking the page"
• 18:37, 27 August 2009 Kurdo777 Deletes page and claims "cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism"
• 19:22, 27 August 2009 Nathan Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:25, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 19:44, 27 August 2009 Durova Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 21:06, 27 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Protects page.
• 14:40, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page as it comes out of protection.
• 14:43, 4 September 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 15:32, 4 September 2009 Dbachmann Deletes page with a personal attack as reason.
• 19:55, 4 September 2009 Rockstone35 Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:59, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page claiming that uninvolved users have no right to restore the page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this even exceeds 3RR. None of this addresses the problems with the content/duplication of content discussed at length on the talk page. --Folantin (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not three RR. Per the page: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." Consensus was for keeping the page and not blanking it. The actions in destroying the consensus determine version over and over was edit warring and an act of vandalism per WP:VAND. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that the editors have formed "grudges" agaisnt each other. Even when a editor makes a valid suggestion, it will be shunned down one way or another by them, because they want only their suggestion to win. Warrior4321 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A useful alternative to a topic ban might be a voluntary editing and discussion moratorium from the same editors; eliminates the element that seems punitive, but accomplishes the same goal of allowing the content discussion to continue unimpeded with personal disputes. An agreement like that could conclude this thread and provide some respite for these editors, if nothing else. Nathan ^T 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about we impose normal consensus based restrictions in which people don't remove wholesale content from a page after 9 people have said that such actions would be inappropriate? In any normal situation, Alefbe would have been blocked multiple times along with Folantin for even daring to blank the page in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, would you stop trying to make these "it's six of one and half a dozen of the other" proposals? I don't trust your judgement. ANI could have stopped this problem by cracking down on Ottava Rima after the disgraceful John Kenney incident. It chose to do nothing about him. Again. The debate was over before I and others even had a chance to take part in it [39]. --Folantin (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed two methods that both have a chance at solving the dispute over the article; neither allow one side to "win" the dispute, because that isn't the point. If you believe that there is a superior alternative, then post it with your evidence and rationale. I think you'll agree that its unlikely that anything will be resolved through talkpage discussion if the participants stay the same, so unless you prefer that state of events some change is necessary. Nathan ^T 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was nothing even though you keep trying to claim their is. It is just one more event in a pattern of things you've been making up. You do realize that it is against the rules to do such, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin - I see a bunch of bad behavior, on all sides. None of you have anything to be proud of here. If this is not otherwise resolved and the edit warring on the article continues next week when the current full protection expires, I for one will willingly disruption, edit war, or personal attack block any or all of you as required to end it. None of you are currently showing the type of collaborative attitude required to actually work on a consensus solution moving forwards.

I Support the proposed one-month topic ban. At this point, if you cannot participate constructively, don't participate at all. Find another topic for the next month if you can't be civil and collaborative. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One month topic ban against whom? and based on what? Alefbe (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this subsection's first paragraph. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that. Please see my comments after that. In particular, if you are talking about edit war, how do you justify a ban against Dbachman (while his involvement in edit war is not more than Nathan himself or users who have not elaborated their justification for their revert, such as Durova and Rockstone35). Also, if you are talking about personal attacks, how do you justify a ban against me? Alefbe (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asserting that each of you has committed all of those offenses. I am, however, asserting that all of you are behaving unconstructively, and I support the proposed topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You support banning me from participating in that discussion. You should present a justification for that. You haven't presented any example of personal attacks or disruptive behavior on my part. Other than personal attacks and disruptive behaviour in talk page, what can justify banning a user from participating in a discussion? Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this proposal is justified. The involved editors are not equally at fault, so this proposal is not equitable for them; nor is it going to result in the best outcome for the article its readers. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought we were supposed to be encyclopaedia. Punishing editors with long histories of working on Iranian history topics for, er, editing an article on Iranian history really sends out a good message. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laying the ground rules

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:13, 5 September 2009

I don't agree with this unilateral statement. Presumably, the proposal above was a proposal--something that we're supposed to discuss, and come to some sort of consensus about. I don't think the discussion has come to a consensus yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think month long topic bans are going to work here if three weeks of protection doesnt. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way we have for preventing changes is page protection. In this case it is not a general content dispute, but a dispute over one particular change--the redirect. Saying that after pp ends that someone will be blocked for changing back to the other version edit--the only edit in question--is extending the protection indefinitely. I can understand people get frustrated over this, but Seddon's proposal goes beyond what an admin should do. This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. Nor do I agree with the attempt to foreclose an agreed settlement by archiving the page. The discussion is not over, and I have removed the archive tags.I think placing them was premature. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, we can have a discussion on that, but I think the lack of resolution is remarkably obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

This is not permanent - Seddon put it as until such time that a clear consensus has emerged which I support. If all the parties involved can agree on a mutually acceptable compromise way forwards then the issue is done and over with. If they cannot, the communities patience for this reaching ANI over and over again is reaching or at the limits of "nice doggie" and the stick is coming out... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respect the reversion of the close and ask for one other non-involved admins opinion. I would point out that my close statement with regards to the blocking was only enforceable until a clear consensus is formed. I do not believe ANI is the best place to form a consensus on content(for countless reasons) and the recent poll (as part of an rfc) started at the talk page should be the method to resolve this. I do not see this discussion here resolving anything at this time. We should allow the parties to use the 6 days to get somewhere.

I also agre completely with your statement that This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. This is a clear weakness in our dispute resolution process and "enforcing" consensus which is subject to change is difficult. That is something that we need to address.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus take 2

Even though there was a clear consensus of 9 people saying not to turn the page into a redirect or a disambiguated page and only 5 people saying to turn it into one, this has been ignored by all of the administrators above. Seddon, DGG, and Georgewilliamherbert, for example, do not acknowledge this. As such, I have started it all over again. If admin are willing to ignore the clear consensus that comes out of this Straw Poll (as they seemed to want to ignore the one that came out of the before polling along with a connected RfC), then I have no other recourse than to scream and pull out my hair (or really cuss a lot and send angry emails). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what you have, rather, is the opportunity to try to prepare a sound and irrefutable argument. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was sound and irrefutable. The case should have been open and closed with blocks against the five listed for constantly blanking a page against consensus. It seems that the admin corps really dropped the ball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been reviewed. If I were to actively intervene and treat everyone with a content-blind behavior-centric response, you'd be blocked along with them. You are pushing too hard and behaving too disruptively Ottava. Please stop doing so. You are not innocent of wrongdoing in this. We're giving everyone a breather on the topic and article by full protecting, and an extended one by taking those of you most combative in the incident out of it for another month with the article ban (maybe). The alternative is behavioral blocks which you would find yourself on the receiving end, among others.

Wikipedia uses consensus and not majority vote because we do not want situations like this where a majority feel empowered to break rules and abuse the situation because there are more of you. Consensus is getting along with the people who disagree with you - and entirely the opposite of your behavior here. Consensus, civility, not making personal attacks, and not disrupting things when you don't immediately get your way are important.

ANI is not a hammer to beat down your opponents. If you begin to try to use it like a hammer, the things it hits will not be the ones you point at, necessarily. We are assuming that the full protection and proposed topic ban will get the message across to everyone and that an outbreak of reasonableness and civil discourse will ensue. If that is not what happens, the hammer will probably come down. Your thumb is currently under the hammer, along with others'. If you feel like squashing yourself, continue the way you have been going.

Community patience nearing end. Caution. Do not proceed further. Work it out. Assume good faith and move forwards, not backwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is -never- a push too hard against clear vandalism. There -was- clear consensus and it is obvious that they -don't- want to discuss it. Did you bother to actual read the discussion and see how every time there was a chance to correct the aspects of the page they instantly reverted back to edit warring and pushing for a redirect? Those are some of the oldest ploys around. ANI is a hammer to stop edit warring, vandalism, and the destruction of this encyclopedia. When Wizardman first reverted Alefbe, it should -never- have been reverted back by Folantin. None of the edit warring should have happened, and Wizardman or any of the other administrators should have handed out blocks from the very beginning against anyone even thinking about blanking that page. I am quite confident that if this went to ArbCom, there would be clear evidence that I had consensus for my actions and that the five listed above went out of their way to troll and vandalise the page simply because they could not stand that they did not "win". That is a severe abuse of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, ANI fails. A clear case of stalking and nothing is done about it. Ottava's comments (e.g. "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less") show he has no knowledge of even the most basic facts of the subject but is just there to troll. This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site. --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin - Please see my comments to Ottava. These apply equally much to you. Either stop doing anything near each other, or work within the policy and community standards to cooperate, get along and treat each other with respect, etc. Continuing to fire salvos back and forth on ANI is not appropriate at this time unless you are seeking to be blocked for the weekend.

The combined lot of you have about exhausted my patience and I believe I speak for the community here (though others can refute and comment, of course). I am at this point fully prepared to end the sniping with blocks if the collective "you all" cannot act in an adult, responsible, constructive, and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried avoiding this guy since his RFA in April. I've presented clear evidence of his stalking. This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, if not all, uninvolved administrators are now acutely and painfully aware of what everyone involved is doing. You have stated that you feel he's stalking. You do not need to say that again. You do not need to call him a troll, period, and should not have in the first place. Insulting Wikipedia as a whole ("This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site.") and the administrator community ("This place is a joke.") in the process of continuing to push Ottava's buttons and visa versa is not a good long term Wikipedia survival strategy, either.

If you believe that any of your behavior here was a good thing, I suggest to you that your judgement is impaired by the stress of the situation, and that you may want to walk away for a bit and come back when you are feeling better about it and can work more constructively to avoid unnecessary conflict.

As I said several times above - this uninvolved administrator has seen about as many buttons pushed in this series of incidents as he is willing to tolerate without starting to block people. If you stand up and start pushing buttons after several explicit warnings along those lines - what exactly do you expect to happen next, and why are you doing that?

Perhaps this needs more uninvolved admin mediation on specific talk pages or some such. But what it does not need is any more disruptive incivility, personal attacks, insults, and assumptions of bad faith. Stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to end the conversation here then the correct procedure is to mark this as "Resolved", not to threaten all and sundry with blocks on no rationale but your own patience. I suggest you do this. (ANI is not the "administrator community" as a whole. Most of the decent admins I know are disgusted at its ineffectiveness. With good reaon. Plus, I can say what I like about Wikipedia. I've been here long enough to know this place has been going down the sink over the past year or so. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia based on accurate content. Clearly, it isn't). Now you can mark this as "Resolved". --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Update: Whatever the case, I'm done here. I will be taking no further part in this ANI thread. (The failure of admins here to do anything about the attacks on the completely uninvolved User:Akhilleus is duly noted). --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 9/5 ratio is much too marginal to be used as a consensus for a controversial decision. And ottava rima doesn't seem to have read up on WP:VANDAL: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW".·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

64% support of the original page is not enough to keep it from becoming a redirect? Maunus, there is no possible way to make such a claim as that. You are either wrong, and you will strike, or you are just making things up. And blanking a page from 60k to a redirect is -not- a content dispute. It is a bulk removal of information. WP:VAND has a section on "blanking" which you need to read. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is not blanking - and 64% is barely a majority, and by no means a consensus. I have participated in enough redirect discussions to know that even 10 to 2 is not necessarily a consensus. Consensus is based on arguments not numbers.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking is the wholesale removal of text. To claim that redirecting a 60k page is not blanking is so absurd that words cannot describe it. To claim that 64% is a "bare majority", when people pass RfA with consensus on that is so unbelievably absurd that it takes all of AGF to assume that your comments above are not intended to be purely disruptive. There is -no- possible way for someone to make such claims honestly. There was no argument that could override the community's opinion there that the page had to stay. There is no way to claim there was. The fact that you would even attempt to suggest that there was and rationalize such inappropriate blanking is so awful that I will be sure to list you as a named party when this goes to RfAr just so ArbCom can analyze how absurd your comments are and hopefully keep you from ever having the power to enforce them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note how my single comment above has prompted Ottava to hound me on my talk page and threaten to have me desysopped, merely for disagreeing with him, this clearly doesn't speak in his favour. I would second a topic ban in his case, if not a complete ban for disruption.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement? No, it is because you have stated comments that are 100% against our wikipedia policies and completely dangerous. You claim that we did not try to include them. Did you even read the talk page? There is no way to change their mind when they keep edit warring in a deletion of the page. That is 100% pure vandalism. Your lack of recognizing that would suggest that you are either unfit to be an admin or your account is compromised. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lets make one thing clear - Jimbo Wales started this whole system in order to make an encyclopedia. It is our job as participants here to do whatever it takes to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not some whore that we can use, abuse, and toss to the side. It is unacceptable for any member who is honestly here to build the encyclopedia to allow for a top priority page that deals with a notable term that has appeared in hundreds of thousands of sources and documents to simply just vanish because a tiny minority of people simply do not like the content of the page. Not only would such a thing violate just about every single one of our policies, it turns Wikipedia into an utter laughing stock. Admin at Wikipedia are obligated to stand up for Wikipedia's policies, and any admin not fighting to protect this encyclopedia does not deserve the term or the title. Any user who does not want to protect the content at Wikipedia is at the wrong place. As one of the most prolific content editors, I have put thousands of hours, thousands of my own dollars, and incredible effort into building this encyclopedia. There are many people just like me that want to make this something worth while. We accept Jimbo's desire to make Wikipedia great. We do our damnedest to ensure that these peoples are excellent. It is a shameful to see so many people just passively allow any tiny group of people free reign to destroy this place. This is not some obscure topic. This is not some tiny store, some obscure faculty member, some song no one heard of, or anything even close. This is one of the most important historic terms. I am sure that every single person here would probably have some page that if they saw an IP address turn it into a redirect because they claim "it sucks", they would revert it on the spot as vandalism. And yet no one, not one person, has had the guts to defend this Wikipedia by blocking five vandals that are dead set on destroying this place and making it known that Wikipedia is not a place for games, not a place to push some wacko POV, not some whore to be treated like shit. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take off the Spider-Man costume. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Singularity42 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polite suggestion

"It's not what you do. It's the way you do it." - Mae West

Take it from someone who's seen a lot of arbitration cases; this dispute is currently inching toward RFAR. If it goes there that will not be fun. To both sides of the current dispute: even if you're 100% right about the content issue (which of course you are), that won't weigh at arbitration. It'll be the slow edit warring and sniping that the case would examine. The case will waste weeks or months of your life, guaranteed, and you may end up sanctioned as a result of it. There are better ways to resolve the matter.

1. Find a mediator, dig up sources, and pretend that the absolute euphemism on the other side of the dispute is a reasonable person. If you're right and they're really expletives deleted then they will show their colors and your own graceful reasonableness will reflect well on you. If they aren't quite so bad then maybe you'll actually reach agreement.
2. Walk away from the dispute. Let the article be wrong for a while. Most of the public does realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Weeks or months from now, once tempers have settled down, it'll be easier to resolve things then. This is far less burdensome than squandering the same weeks or months on arbitration.

Sincerely, Durova³¹¹ 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – GabrielVelasquez blocked for 24 hours for harassment Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a small disagreement with this user over the technicalities of some disambiguation notes at Thessaloniki, which unfortunately he seems entirely unwilling to discuss without a constant stream of abuse and personal attacks: [40] ("leave the real work to real men, not clowns"); [41] ("You think your funny, pair of Clowns, probably responsible for the Hitler redirect vandalism"); [42] ("Just because you get easily confused by logic..."); [43] ("sheer ignorance"); [44] ("stop being such a proud moron."); [45], [46] ("bullshit ... lie"). I note the same user has been involved in several heated disputes elsewhere over the last few days and has been the subject of previous ANI and Wikiquette threads. Could somebody please step in, as this is rather annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny coming from your considering all the noted provocations and abuses of yours(see last entry) I have discovered. And in my humble opinion the remedies are far from enough. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to note, Future Perfect at Sunrise is under an editing restriction by ArbCom here. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 13:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate to me how his editing restriction is relevant here; i.e., how he has violated them. I've clicked GabrielVelasquez's diffs and not found any incivility or assumptions of bad faith except his own. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree: this looks to be purely a problem with GabrielVelasquez, who doesn't quite seem to grasp WP:NPA.—Kww(talk) 14:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned GabrielVelazsquez for his gross incivility and flagrant use of Personal Attacks. If he continues I will block him. I have also told Fut.Perf. that in order to avoid confusion about his editing restrictions it might be a good idea to stay further away form macedonia related content. It seems that the dispute was in fact about how to disambiguate to the country macedonia.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should FutPerf stay away from Macedonia-related content? His restriction is in the area of civility, not content, and unless someone can demonstrate recent evidence that he can't remain civil while editing that topic, there's no reason he shouldn't edit it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood the nature of Fut.Perfs restriction - but this alone is a clue that confusion might ensue. I merely offered advice that edits in that area might be misunderstood - it did not constitute a warning. On a second note GabrielVelzaquez apparently did not understand the seriousness of the warning i gave him[47] and I have blocked him for twenty four hours, which he can use to read up on the civilty policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

My userpage(not my user talk page) was recently vandalized by a user name Smartie12. You can see the edit if you go to the edit history of my userpage, since I removed it. This is the edit that was made [48] I would like something done about this, even though I removed it and left a note on the user's talk page, I would like an administrator to do something. Thank you. Abby 82 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked that account. Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also tag it for CSD if you don't want to leave a blank page, since you didn't have a user page before. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost sounds like some kids in the same class/school though, doesn't it? Blocked user doesn't get that this isn't WP:MYSPACE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never even heard of this user before. I have no idea who the person is, and I'm in University. I'm an editor for many articles, and The Baby-Sitters Club happens to be one of them. Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what's CSD? And how do I request it? Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD HalfShadow 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tan | 39 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for all of your help. Abby 82 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Fitzgerald has committed several copyright violations, and refuses to acknowledge any issue with his behavior, much less correct it.

• In one case, he basically copied an entire paragraph from a news story into two articles, with hardly any change of phrasing, passing it off as his own (not a quote or anything): [49], [50]. Compare to source here.
• In another issue, he copied a block of text, again, basically verbatim, into a talk page, as his own text - not a quote, without credit - [51], compare to source here. I told him, in our discussion on that talk page, that this is wrong ([52]), but he refused to listen.

I've warned him on his own talk page - [53], but he refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing on his part. His talk page has another, unrelated, copyright violation warning (I haven't checked it). Please deal with this user. Maybe he'll listen to an administrator.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, he doesn't understand image copyright either (not that I'm an expert, but he's uploaded screenshots - which can be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and then put them in a gallery at Kin-dza-dza! with no attempt to discuss them. I'll also point him to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm "the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for special assistance to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds severely discriminates against Arabs." (my strike) does look rather too long a phrase to include. I'm sure I've read somewhere that six words is often treated as the notional limit on unacknowledged quotations.

Having said that, I'm hopeful that things will resolve themselves. When I raised am issue with Jim previously, he thought about my comments and then undid his original edit. Maybe the fact that you two are involved in a content dispute at the same article makes it more difficult. However, I would suggest explicitly indicating the problem phrases on the talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's way worse than that. That entire edit is a particularly poor close paraphrasing of the source (see, for instance, "The Ministry published town-by-town data...", or "..institutionalized budgetary..."). And, of course, the entire paragraph he copied into a talk page, which wasn't even really paraphrased, but without any attribution etc. I saw zero willingness to cooperate, so I'm not hopeful. It would help to have someone discuss this with him, as he simply chose to attack me instead of listening. okedem (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joemama993 has repeatedly been adding a list of former airstaff to WDTW-FM, claiming his own experience with the station as a "source." Despite being told several times that such editing is unacceptable, he has continued. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time Joemama993 has edit-warred on articles. He previously continually added broadcast schedules to the pages, in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR and after being repeatedly told so, until he was blocked. It finally took a stern warning from myself to get through to him on that. Joemama993 obviously, though, has a problem with edit-warring that needs to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this and I'm rather dismayed at the messages Neutralhomer and TenPoundHammer have left for this guy, nobody has taken the time out to explain, in clear, calm language, what the problem is, Neutralhomer has threatened to start reporting Joemama993 for vandalism if he adds in a list of former presenters, which isn't in keeping with our policies here on vandalism, whereby we don't label editors trying to improve the project as vandals, no matter quite how bad their editing may be. TenPoundHammer is more diplomatic, but goes on about the user potentially pulling usernames out of his ass, which to my mind, isn't helpful either as it's tantamount to accusing the guy of making stuff up and adding it to Wikipedia. The impression I get, when I read the warnings left for this chap, is that someone has come in, messed up and they're getting a telling off, there's no real impression of the guy being given good quality, friendly advice and being welcomed to Wikipedia - the fact he's still making the same errors whilst putting in what looks to be a considerable amount of time, would suggest he doesn't understand what the problem is with his edits (as indeed, does his edit summaries). If there's a reoccurrence of these edits, I would strongly urge someone to leave some friendly advice rather than some more warnings, explaining more fully what the problem is with the unsourced edits. Nick (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joemama993 had previously gotten several very calm notices from another user, an admin, and disregarded them and continued to add schedules in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. My warning was meant to be as stern as I possibly could be as an regular editor and it worked. User:Joemama993 has stopped adding schedules to pages. Sometimes people need a good stern warning (a verbal kick in the ass if you will) to set them straight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

AFD closed as keep by Nick. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)‎ out of its misery, or at least keep an eye on it? There's only one way it's going to go, and the discussion is starting to veer over the thin line separating "strong discussion" from "crazy". – iridescent 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as keep - just after I finished adding sources to Watford Gap to make sure it's not deleted! --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having been previously blocked for the same offence, User:Mavis789 has returned and picked up where she left off [54]. Surely a permanant block is required? Dale 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Permanent blocks' do not exist, and assuming you are talking about an indef, I would say that that would be a bit over the top at this point in time. I'd rather see more focused attempts to discuss the issue with the user -- perhaps such a thing has already occurred, but if so I am missing it. — neuro^(talk) 06:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSN was closed for this reason — a tendency to aim for excessively long bans when a shorter one would do. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have recently come across the user page of User:Ctjf83. Two the the userboxes were considerably offensive. One had a red slash over the word "GOD" and said "this user doesn't believe any myths or superstitions." This is by no means the same thing as a userbox merely declaring that one is an atheist. This userbox was a direct attack on people who believe in God. I thought it had been decided that attacking other people based on their religious beliefs was not okay. The red slash over the word "GOD" implies advocacy of discrimination against people who believe in God. The association of belief in God as "myths" or "superstition" also advocates discrimination against those who believe in God. This is by no means any different than having userboxes attacking other people on the basis of race or ethnicity. Imagine if the userbox said the same thing, but the red slash was over the word "HOLOCAUST." That userbox would rightfully be deleted, and that is how offensive the one I am talking about is. There are regular atheist userboxes to choose from, but User:Ctjf83 chose one that deliberately attacks others and subtley advocates discrimination. User:Ctjf83 is guilty of the same offenses that resulted in the recent deletion of the user page of User:Raghuvir.tomar. There is no room for hate on Wikipedia. The other offensive userbox contained pornography. In the userbox describing how User:Ctjf83 "enjoys gay porn a lot," there are two actual images of pornography. Images that would otherwise be deemed pornographic may be acceptable on pages about sex and pornography, but User:Ctjf83's userboxes serve no purpose other than to display pornography. If I'm not mistaken, vandals have been blocked and/or banned for uploading pornography for no good reason. This is Wikipedia. Advocating hatred and discriminiation, and showing shock images and random pornography, belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. These two offensive userboxes should be deleted and an investigation needs to be started to see if there are any more userboxes advocating hate and discrimination or showing shock porn. Again, User:Ctjf83's two offensive userboxes belong on Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia.--Quince Quincy (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I hate to say that I disagree with you. The line through god is by no means offensive, it is just strong opinion. And the two images are not porn, they just show guys kissing. Calling it porn is connotative of calling it sex (which it isn't). And if you really don't like it, don't look. Basically, I fail to see how it is offensive. –túrian^patois 04:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it is good to notify the party involved. –túrian^patois 04:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox itself says that the images are porn. The other userbox, instead of saying that said user believes that God is myth and superstition, says that people who believe in God are superstitious and believers in myths. This is a subtle attack.--Quince Quincy (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says the user likes porn, not that they are porn. there's no way that would be classified pornography. The atheist userbox does not suggest an attack to me. I suggest you take the discussion to the user's talk page - there's really not a lot that admins can do about it, from my point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to go out of your way looking for "extremely offensive" userboxes, I think you could do better than a word with a diagonal line through it and a couple of pictures of men touching and kissing. --TS 04:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're over-reacting. Working in a collaborative environment requires that you learn to deal with opinions and attitudes that make you feel uncomfortable. Why don't you just avoid his User Page if it offends you so much? Crafty (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agreed. And Quincy, you are straddling a thin fence of equivocation with that second sentence. Also, the pictures are a representation (since he seems to have not shown two guys having sex). This seems like a pointless argument. Just don't look at the "offensive" material. –túrian^patois 04:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Those userboxes are so far down on his page, it seems as if you'd almost have to be desperately seeking something to offend you to even notice. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody would have noticed the purportedly offensive userboxes, except that they were reported here on ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this is resolved, I'd like to point out that neither of these userboxes was created by me, and I'm not the only user to use both of these. CTJF83Talk 07:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that would have been porn in the year 1900, but not now. And if Quincy is a true believer, then he would also believe that God will be the one drawing the circle-slash over the user eventually, so why worry? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am so far behind the curve it looks like a straight line. Quincy was indef'd as a sock.[55] So he basically drew the circle-slash through himself. "Plaxico" strikes again! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate administrative help with this. I'm posting this here rather than at AE as it may get more attention here, but I can move it if people think that page is more appropriate.

Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. The article is in poor shape as a result of around 1200 edits over the years from LaRouche accounts. Will BeBack and I recently started trying to get it into shape. This involves removing material sourced only to LaRouche if it's unduly self-serving, and restoring or adding material from mainstream secondary sources. We're also tidying refs, fixing the writing, and generally trying to make the article more policy-compliant.

Leatherstocking is reverting my edits as I make them, ignoring the in-use tag. He has posted complaints about me on AN/AE, AN/3RR, the BLP noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard. He wants to retain or add material sourced only to LaRouche, and remove or reduce material sourced to, for example, The New York Times. One example of his reverting is this. It concerns the period where LaRouche moved from being a left-wing group to becoming, in the view of The New York Times, a far-right group with extensive commercial interests. Leatherstocking removed the names of the companies LaRouche was associated with. He removed the details of the training camps LaRouche members were being sent to.

I feel this is unacceptable editing that violates all the LaRouche ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too early in the morning for me to do anything but protect the page for 1 day while sort out what if anything is to be done about Leatherstocking and stop any more disruption meanwhile - my first reaction given his forumshopping is that action should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem is that Leatherstocking seems genuinely unable to understand the policies, or apply them to LaRouche. He wants LaRouche sources to be treated on a par with academics and mainstream high quality newspapers. He removes The New York Times information about LaRouche's commercial interests and anti-terrorist training camps, but restores that LaRouche was given the key to the city of a town in Mexico, and wants to go into great detail about some interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting a feeling of deja vu here? Wasn't there another user recently that was doing the same thing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage everyone to closely examine the recent edit history of the article. SV wants to own the article. She and WBB are tag-team edit warring. See also here and note two things; a) Leatherstocking had the courtesy to supply links documenting the edit warring, while SV makes vague charges with one link, and b) anyone who isn't hostile to Lyndon LaRouche gets dumped on and ridiculed.

Finally, regarding the 'key to the city of a town in Mexico' and 'interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China', we should all endeavor to counter systemic bias. Just because something happens outside the United States doesn't give SV the right to delete it. --ZincPlatedWasher (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above courageous redlink was created 12 minutes before filing this complaint, or 1 minute after I made my comment above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an obvious sock account to me, it's now blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, a "leather" stocking??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!, I was trying not to go there! :) If any admins disagree, feel free to reverse the block. Dreadstar ☥ 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited a Larouche article in my life. You people are paranoid. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least not under that IP address, this being its first entry ever. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., your paranoia is now being discussed here. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not paranoia, it's more like a puzzle or mystery to be solved. Kind of like a game. Which is also what it is to many socks - a game that abuses wikipedia. And the reason we are "so bad" at finding socks is because we give far more latitude to those sock game-players than we probably should. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zincplatedwasher may not be Leatherstocking, but should we check? Yeah, maybe just another troll, but if it is a sock of Leatherstocking, that would simplify matters. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could check that IP address while you're at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That duly noted, regarding Zincplatedwasher and Leatherstocking: Unlikely . Vassyana (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I am not "a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche." This appears to be an attempt to initiate the WP:9STEPS. When I first began to edit here 2 years ago, I watched the POV wars at the LaRouche articles because I found them entertaining. Over time, I grew more annoyed by the tactics of the anti-LaRouche team than by those of the pro-LaRouche team, in part because the anti-LaRouche team seemed to have an unfair advantage (again, see WP:9STEPS.) However, until last month, it had been my practice never to actively edit a LaRouche-related article; I confined myself to adding tags, or reverting edits that I felt were in violation of policy. I only began to edit some "LaRouche" articles after engaging in mediation with Will Beback (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement.)

• Regarding the one diff that SV cites as an example of my alleged misbehavior[56], there is already a separate article for U.S. Labor Party, which would be the appropriate location for an extended summary of a newspaper article about that organization. However, even at that article, I don't believe that it is necessary to include every minor detail, such as how much the alleged training costs per day, in which states it allegedly took place, or that U.S. Labor Party members were employed at a company that allegedly printed high school newspapers. For readers who are interested in such minutiae, we have external links. SlimVirgin herself has deleted substantial amounts of well-sourced material, and she has dismissed objections by saying that the article is too long and she is "trimming" it. However, the "trimming" seems to be POV-based, and there seems to be some simultaneous "fattening" going on.

• SlimVirgin complains about being reverted. She has made over 140 edits to this article since August 28, and she has reverted virtually every edit made by other editors during this period. On top of that, she went so far as to revert the NPOV tag I posted[57], which as I understand it is a policy no-no. I would also like to point out that when I do revert, I include an accurate edit summary. SlimVirgin mixes her reverts in with other, more innocuous edits, and then disguises the process with a vague edit summary along the lines of "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight in way over a year, 5 times[58][59][60][61][62] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[63] which the second editor did[64] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[65][66] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[67] The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPS as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[68] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) ++clarify 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject which closed earlier by User:Sandstein? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for the long post, but this is a six-month long problem and I just don't know how to explain the issue properly in less words.)
This whole matter is getting out of hand. I recently "dared" to enter a talkpage dispute with User:Imbris on Talk:Hey, Slavs [69], and now I'm a victim of stalking and disruptive behavior. After I initiated the discussion on Talk:Hey Slavs, I've been unable to work on anything. I've been followed around to an increasing number of articles yesterday (SR Croatia, Template:Infobox SFRY, Independent State of Croatia, Template:History of Croatia) and all my edits were reverted and I've been forced to start long ridiculous discussions over such nonsense as the color of a template. User:Imbris believes I am on some "sinister agenda", and perceives any edit of mine as "communist propaganda" (non-nationalists are often called "communists" in the Balkans), no matter how silly and meaningless.

The main focus of all this is the small and insignificant Hey, Slavs article, on which for almost six months continuously four or more users were trying their best to convince User:Imbris his new disputed edits are factually incorrect. RfCs were called, to no response, which prompted us to request informal mediation. User:Dottydotdot got involved and after a while recommended that Imbris' edits be mostly removed. However, he then proceeded to ignore the decisions of the informal mediation (and the opinions of virtually all other involved users) on the grounds that "not all other WP:DR steps were taken", and that this supposedly invalidates the mediation :P. Everything proceeded as usual until finally everyone else got bored and frustrated and more-or-less gave in to User:Imbris' demands. Now I plunged in again in the hopes of ending this once and for all. I got Wikihounded on everything else I do. I am completely unable to contribute, as all my edits are now "opposed" on the ground they are "communist".

It is important to understand that User:Imbris never, ever agrees to any proposal. If you prove him wrong on one point, he will cook-up another reason to oppose everything that's done. (On Talk:SR Croatia the issue was first WP:NAME, now its "fabrication of information" by use of WP:NAME). One is almost frightened of him ever "joining in" as you know it will not end for months, and you will be unable to do any work on the article. You literally have to be "careful not to cross him".

Long, long story short, we seriously need someone who can decide on this and enforce the decision on these articles. Its been bloody six months already :P. I also feel that the behavior of User:Imbris is deliberately disruptive, stalking, and highly detrimental to article quality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To at least prevent further pointless revert-warring on Hey, Slavs, I have fully protected the article - the 3rd time this has been necessary in recent months. This is clearly a deeper issue, though, and there is clear evidence of following edits here. (Edit): However, this is ridiculous - an edit war (in which both yourself and Imbris both broke 3RR) over the colour of an infobox? Oh, please. Black Kite 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking doesn't really help - the damn article will have to be unblocked eventually. I think we need serious involvement on the part of one of you guys... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in regards to Template:Infobox SFRY, both red and blue look very nice. But I personally might have blue instead of red. Is anyone willing to argue that red is actually a better color for the template?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case anyone was thinking about changing the infobox to a different color, I think we can safely say that it won't look good in orange (and possibly not in yellow either).--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previewed the template with some colors and yellow looks worse. Green is not bad. You know, I did say to keep the infobox as blue earlier but purple looks actually pretty good for the infobox. Anyone agree?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a black template would be great --Notedgrant (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, every time I see DIREKTOR's name pop up on pages I watch, there's usually someone there accusing him of being a communist. One new user went so far as to post on Jimbo's page complaining that DIREKTOR was using Wikipedia to spread communist propoganda. AniMate^draw 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that I honestly am against communism. :P Fervently so. Not that I think "communism is not allowed on Wikipedia" as some of those guys seem to think, its just my position: I am not a communist. Like I said, in ex-Yugoslavia if you're not a nationalist you must be a communist (or a Serb, if you're Croatian :).

That stupid color dispute is the perfect example: its an infobox about a subdivision of a socialist state. The subdivision map is red, the flags are predominantly red, and the insignia is full of red stars and such (some subdivision flags are altogether red). So ten months ago I changed the color to socialist red (among other edits) - I was trying to improve the template, Now its "non-consensus communist propaganda". I also fixed up the black and gray on Template:Nazism sidebar and Template:Fascism sidebar - was that Nazi propaganda? I feel like I'm Flora and Imbris is Merryweather from the Sleeping Beauty... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw AniMate, that post on Jimbo's page was by User:Formyopinion. Its an account created about a month ago. The new user's interests include: accusing me of communist POV-pushing on User talk:Jimbo Wales,... and that's about it :P [70]. Its a sock of some guy I reported trying to get back at me - I get that all the time. The "people" accusing me of communist propaganda are likely one guy trying to get me banned :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps wasn't verbose enough in my post. I saw that post as part of the campaign of harassment you were describing, not as legitimate. My advice is to file a checkuser to see if these are connected. Hmmm, now I remember why I refuse to edit articles in this area again. Good times. AniMate^draw 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I don't know how to proceed? Do I go through WP:DR every time I make an edit? It appears Imbris only "accepts" mediator conclusions if all previous steps of WP:DR are tried (no matter how silly it is to go get a 3O for a six-month long dispute with 5 involved Users). On Talk:Hey, Slavs#Serbo-Croatian version I proposed we both agree on mediation and adhere to the results regardless of what they may be. That was September 2nd. The proposal was completely ignored. I then asked the guy about that five more times during the past three days. I also posted the question on his talk [71], and I even posted a note in the talkpage topic below [72]. Its pretty obvious he's deliberately ignoring the proposal, I can't imagine why.

Do we take all this to MEDCOM? At first I was reluctant since all this is so trivial, and it seems to me pretty obvious that Imbris is opposing all these Users out of little more than spite. After a while, though, I was desperate enough to suggest it, but Imbris then declared he "won't accept" MEDCOM mediation for some reason... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note advocating mediation on his talk page. If he declines, I suggest you come back here with a series of diffs. The picture you painted in your first post is pretty broad, and specifics are needed for any type of action to be taken. AniMate^draw 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

..or an unreasonable facsimile.[73] Bevare! Bevare! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Baseball Bugs. I briefly remember this user.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much of a "catch", as he's still on my watch list. I remember him all too well, as he was connected with the anti-Obama siege back in March or so. He was a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi, so you might imagine that he had some issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any action need to be taken here, doc? — neuro^(talk) 11:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked out most of his page including unblock requests, so I reverted him. I was surprised to see that he was allowed to edit his talk page. Perhaps an admin who recalls this case could make a judgment as to whether he should be blocked from editing his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he has returned to become productive. Max Antean (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the rules, by blanking unblock requests, is not a good start in that direction. Amusingly enough, the unblock request is mis-stated as if saying reason "not" to unblock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't that clever.

Axmann8 (a-x-m-a-n-n + 8 --> eight ---> ate)

Axm Annate
Max Antean

Checkuser time?

Tarc (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw checkuser time, DUCK time. — neuro^(talk) 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There were a number of impostor accounts that tried to impeach Axmann8 after he was blocked. In fact, I've got a hunch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure what you mean, but eh. — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I blocked this editor for persistent disruptive editing. He was given a second chance by another admin, which is fair enough. However earlier today, in response to a note on my talkpage, I dropped a note onto this user's talkpage warning about various incivil postings he had been making - the diffs are on the conversation at User_talk:Malke_2010#Your_edits. The editor refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem, instead making vague accusations about the behaviour of other editors - though despite me asking a number of times for diffs, he has failed to provide them (instead pasting large amounts of text onto my talkpage which were largely irrelevant). Eventually I disengaged, seeing that the user was unable to accept that they were editing problematically. His replies to my disengagement were this and this, calling myself an the other editor "toxic turds".

Other admin eyes would be welcome, not necessarily to block but to make it very clear what the problem is - as I can only see this problem recurring otherwise. Black Kite 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets have another administrator look into this. Oh I certainly acknowledge that there is a problem. Black Kite is harassing me by threatening to block me because his friend Justafax has an obsession with getting me blocked from the Karl Rove page. Black Kite has an obvious bias against me and when he demanded I show him proof that Justafax was being harassing and uncivil towards me, I posted the evidence on Black Kite's talk page. He deleted it immediately. Justafax has gone to my talk page and retrieved material I deleted and then posted it on the Karl Rove discussion page. If I had done something like that, the outrage would be blinding. I don't want this Black Kite mediating any arguments or discussions regarding Justafax et al. They go to him directly, by the way. Obviously they are friends. The bias is offensive. It's a ganging up on me, and it's patently unfair. I'm sick of these ad hominem attacks. I want to see something said to them for a change. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please, all the truly horrible things Justafax has said about me on the Karl Rove talk page has been conveniently archived, so you'll have to go back into the history and find it. He's called me a sock puppet, a joke, he's been dismissive, he acts (and I must say VsevolodKrolikov as well, act like I have no right to edit the Rove page. And please, no more applying the rules to me and not to them. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke did not edit wikipedia following her block until today. She didn't attempt to edit a page or find a way of working with people. Instead among her first actions were calling user:Jusdafax "civility cancer" and a "sick individual" who should be "banned for life" and accusing me of being a sockpuppet, an accusation which she has since repeated, and another editor, who removed her abusive posts, a "vandal". Malke has been given ample opportunity to learn how to work co-operatively with others and consistently failed. I think Black Kite has been commendably patient given today's events.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with either Justafax or VsevolodKrolikov before today. (2) The reason I removed the wall of text from my talkpage is that it was merely a copy and paste of your talk page archive which provided no commentary to back up your complaints at all (not to mention that it screwed up the format of the page). I have four times asked for diffs showing Justafax's incivility, even if it was relevant to your own, which it isn't. (3) If I had "an obvious bias" against you, I would've blocked you for the "toxic turd" edit summary straight away. The fact I've brought it to here shows that I actually have an interest in this being resolved without this happening. Black Kite 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. . .If I had gone into your friend's talk page and retrieved something he'd deleted and then posted it on another talk page, your reaction would have been blinding. I think your tone and the words and dishonesty from you speak volumes about your agenda here. I am justifably angry that Justafax is continuing to attack me even when I've not been around. The real issue is Justafax, not me. You're just blowing smoke around to cover up for him.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact you are still attacking other editors (me, in this case, by calling me dishonest, though I could care less) with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and the fact that you still appear to think that calling other editors "sick", "cancerous" and "turds" is someone else's problem, needs little further exposition. I'm not going to comment further, because there is little point attempting to refute accusations that are conjured out of fresh air, doing so only gives them a legitimacy when they have none. Black Kite 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Justafax apparently has his own complaint page, he is that awful

There is a section regarding Justafax at the wikiquette board. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke 2010, if Justafax's editing is a problem here, then please provide diffs to justify your accusations. You don't expect us to just take your word for it do you? Even if you are correct, it does not justify your behaviour pointed out above. Please keep discussion civil and without personal attacks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to let the admins know, this section as of this edit is both unacceptable and dishonest. Malke 2010 took several edits and placed them together to make a sort of makeshift User RFC on Jusdafax and in doing so included statements that were made regarding Malke's behavior rather than Jusdafax's. I advocate a topic ban for Malke if he's going to engage in this kind of behavior. Soxwon (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a userlinks template to allow this editor's contributions to be viewed:

• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When Malke's last block was lifted, this was presumably on the understanding of improved behavior. The above cited edit from September 6, "People like Justafax, a very sick individual, should be banned for life" does not represent improved behavior in my view. The present ANI discussion would be a good opportunity for Malke to express contrition or promise to behave better in the future. Instead, we see even more evidence of a WP:BATTLE mentality. I suggest an additional one-week block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 72 hours. I have no objection whatsoever to that duration being adjusted as seems appropriate, either if there is some genuine sign that this contributor intends to work within policies & guidelines or if there is ongoing disruption on his or her talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Malke's recent comments I agree with this block. Evil saltine (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Jspearmintfor creating at least three hoax articles which I have nommed for deletion, Letchworth Corset Riot, Garden City (album) and Sebastian Openshaw, and inserting text in other articles which I am still rooting out (I just got done with Spirella Building. This seems to be a sophisticated series of hoaxes that may require action from admins at Commons as well. However, as a first step, could someone check my work and either endorse my block or no? I fear that since I have made the noms, it could be argued I should not also have blocked. I feel, though, a block without warning was needed to avoid further subtle damage to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable. If he requests unblock I would offer a {{2nd chance}}. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't; I've already caught another of his usernames, User:Deliciouscakes, that had done the same thing earlier. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit concerned that we didn't unblock him, if he is really super cool like he says. Perhaps we should reduce it from indef to 200 years? And insist only that he serve as much of it as he can.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've tried hard enough to resolve this, but it seems that User:Domer48 is simply unwilling to address the issues I've raised with him. My most recent attempt (which summarises the issues) [74] was met with this response. The background to this is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question which led to an WP:RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48), which failed due to lack of certification, though (as admins can see from the deleted page) not due to lack of concern on the part of others about Domer's behaviour. (And one user has since said he would have certified, but was away.)

At this point I'm not really sure what to do. I think the points I raised [75] are not really negotiable as principles, and some of the reasons why I asked Domer to acknowledge them can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question. But he seemingly refuses to do so, and even on the trivial point of indenting comments properly, seemed unwilling to engage (User talk history), even making an anti-correction here (removing a colon when he should be adding one) which looks rather like flipping me the finger - which prompted me to do the RFC.

So, now, I'd like one or more uninvolved admins to comment on this situation and on Domer's behaviour, and suggest what the hell to do. If the outcome of that is that it's all in my head and I should apologise, so be it. Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought that is might be the way you engage with him that makes him unwilling to deal with you. I know I certainly wouldnt last 5 minutes with your nonsense before I blew a fuse and got blocked. Brush that chip off yer shoulder and be a man for God sake.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could tell me what exactly you think I did wrong that would be more helpful. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*(I'd point out the irony here, VK, but wow...) HalfShadow 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow, reverse psychology - yer some bhoyo MacNee!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst im no fan of Domer, i dont think formatting is really that important although its helpful if its done correctly, i know i dont always do it right. I think this is going to be another classic example of an attempt to take some form of action over a trivial matter which will produce no results at all except see another admin come under fire and Domers position strenghtened.

This really is becoming an alarming pattern, i can think of atleast 3 other admins recently that have taken action or pushed an issue with different editors whos overall conduct clearly justified some form of action, but they do it in a bad way or use the weakest reasons to justify their actions and it leads to internal fighting between admins and the editor walking away being able to claim they are being unfairly treated and carry on with the same attitude. Ashame really :| BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting matters, but only a little. It is a little bit disruptive to conversations and an experienced contributor shouldn't be doing it consistently wrong. But what matters more is the consistent refusal to follow practice when it's pointed out; and the fact that on even such a minor matter Domer has refused to respond constructively and discuss the issues people have with him (which, for anyone completely new to this, go well beyond the indentation issue - see [76]). If you will, it is (a la Watergate) not the crime, but the coverup. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand your reasons Rd232 and i dont agree with the comments which im sure will follow about you and your actions. I think your intentions are good, but the response you will get on this page will be the complete opposite of what you were intending or hoping for. Its going to get nasty, it always does sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Domer basically backed me into a corner by refusing to discuss the issues. I was totally prepared for him to sooner or later say "yeah, OK, whatever" and then carry on more or less as before, but not for a complete lack of engagement. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rd232's obsession

The hounding is getting ridiculous now. If this admin can't step back from his relentless pursuit, then I think some sort of restriction may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the fireworks have already started. I cant wait to see what the regular defender of Domer and certain other editors have to say when he arrives on the scene and finds out this is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good - CoM's contributions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question were so helpful, he's decided to comment again. Yay. Rd232 ^talk 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it wasn't obvious from the phrasing of my original post, this thread is an attempt to get out of this death spiral where Domer essentially refuses to discuss these issues with me. Perhaps he will with others. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to raise it, considering the RFC failed only because nobody else seconded your concerns about the very specific issue, Most responders agreed with your views on Domers actions or attitude in general. Although i see that RFC was deleted so people cant even view what took place on that page now where there were alot of good comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised at the fringe board. At User talk:Momusufan Xellas (talk · contribs) is accusing Paul H (talk · contribs) of being a fringe Atlantis researcher named Robert Sarmast. Now I know Paul H and can assure everyone he isn't Robert Sarmast. I know Sarmast's username (he explained who he was to me in an email, and did it in a way that makes me pretty sure he doesn't mind others knowing, but I'm not sure of the etiquette here), and he hasn't edited under that username for quite a while in any case. Xellas has been blocked before for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis. If I didn't know one of the editors I'd probably have blocked Xellas again for PAs and attempted outing, even though he's all wrong on that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Dougweller. Please be aware that with an incident like this, policy is to not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information, or mention the personal information that was given (only a diff is necessary). This is so we can effectively purge the personal information. I think Xellas was probably unaware of the policy regarding posting personal information, and it was purely speculative, so I'm going to give him just a stern warning if no one objects. What he did is grounds for a block, but I don't think that would help the situation (blocks are preventative, not punitive). Thanks again. Evil saltine (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]