Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of [Bazian language] origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? [1] At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Wikipedia to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: [2][3][4]) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To GraYoshi2x, well the reference of "nationalists" in March was about me and another editor that opposed to Badagnani's inclusion of an "unauthorized YouTube link". However after that, I've seen/undergone many rude hypocrites' and verbal abusers harassment who have admin buddies, so even thought they said "fuck off", "you idiot", "spammer", or "8 years old", they are free from any charge for their extreme incivility but they are very critical of others' behaviors. So I let the accusation by Badagnani go some time ago. Contrast to them, Badagnani's comments sound to me less threatening and he has tried to improve himself like refraining from adding unreliable links or picture links or saying WP:STALK, so I rather choose to work with him than fight with his dreadful buddy or face other unpleasant people around him. As far as I know, you also did some mistakes to Badagnani, so well...why don't you try to peacefully work with him rather than accuse him in not so much civil manners? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: [10]. Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that people who have done far less than Badagnani have been blocked indefinitely. He certainly has made a number of excellent contributions to Wikipedia, but if this behavior continues I believe the only course of action would be just to give him a longer block like you said. He's shown that he's unwilling to change his ways, and he's been reported to AN/I for what, at least 10 times now? Every single time I edit an article edited by him in the past year, I'm nervous about how he'll react to it, and 90% of the time he just reverts with some nonsensical statement. Needless to say it gets me a bit irritated, especially when he ignores or deletes all my requests to discuss. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the classic "he's problematic, but he does good work" excuse. Never mind Jimbo Wales's recommendation to show jerky people the door, regardless of the work they've done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have known him for much longer than any of people here who complain about him, and have really many ups and downs with him. However, I feel that he is at least not a worst one among harasser/verbal abuser nor rude hypocrite that deserves indef.block, so I could have more leeway toward his behavior and his contributions are indeed "valuable" than Wiki-cops's who do not contribute anything but tag or delete someone's contributions with O article creation. // @Good Ol’factory, since you're deeply involved and want to "resolve this issue", why don't you do something by yourself? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because I'm deeply involved. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to block the user in this instance, though I certainly am willing to give my opinion in this instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been deeply involved in working with him for years and have tried, so should you.--Caspian blue 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned, over the past few weeks I have tried to make efforts to talk to him, but any effort I make on his talk page is immediately removed as "threatening". I would like to see him at least acknowledge that some of his behaviour may be viewed as problematic and at least make a good faith agreement to try a bit harder to show civility to others and respect administrative actions performed by administrators (i.e., don't try to unilaterally revert them). But if a user refuses to budge after dozens of complaints—sorry, but there's the door. And it's not like this is a first instance or that he's still learning the ropes—he's been legitimately blocked at least 7 times in the past! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerky people" are only jerky in the eye of the beholder. User:Good Olfactory has a penchant for getting involved in disputes, presenting himself as a neutral mediator, appearing to take one side and then expressing befuddlement when his actions of indeterminate faith are questioned. The threat of blocks is sure to follow the inevitably unsuccessful mediation efforts with further expressions of frustration that blocks questionably imposed have angered the editor and only caused more damage then they could ever have solved, which can in turn only be addressed by threats and demands for more blocks. The "shoot the horse" remedy of blocking anyone and everyone in all cases, legitimate or otherwise, needs to be replaced with a far-more refined process that keeps valuable editors like Badagnani from areas of conflict while allowing them to continue to work they work well. Punitive blocks such as are being advocated never work. Any advocacy by Good Olfactory for blocks where he has a clear conflict of interest should be accepted only with a lump of salt the size of a small planet. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I haven't put myself out as a "neutral mediator" here. I think that's probably clear from the recitation of my recent encounters with the user in question. I've also clearly stated that a so-called "punitive block" is not a preferred solution. (Incidentally, If accusing someone of uttering a death threat and refusing to apologise or retract the accusation when having it pointed out multiple times by multiple editors that there as no death threat (not to mention a repetition of the accusation after this has been pointed out) is not "jerky behaviour" under Alansohn's loose "eye of the beholder" standard, then he certainly has enough salt on his planet to pass around and share with us all. Anyway, an assessment of jerky behaviour coming from a user who has been blocked x number of times for such behaviour should be, well ... you get the idea. As for my alleged "history" of claiming to be neutral when I'm not—this probably refers to one or more ANIs Alansohn has recently filed against me, which are probably best regarded as vexatious sour grapes trolling from a user who is apparently still upset that I blocked him some time ago. (Links/diffs available upon request.) Looks like more of the same.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to put Badagnani on 1RR against established editors (not anons). Disclosure that I have clashed with him a lot when he reverts, he always shouts "WP:POINT" but he is always the first to complain when anybody questions him and says that people aren't allowed to question him. I ain't the only Vietnamese editor he disagrees with all the time eg Amore Mio (talk · contribs) and he always adds unsourced stuff or any old thing and insists on keeping it even with no sources because it's "useful" and he adds whatever he wants irrespective of undue weight. He does this in all Asian spheres of editing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As an editor who has had problems with him in the past, I would be inclined to support this proposal; however, I think a major aspect of the problems discussed above relate not just to edit warring on articles, but deleting other users' comments from his talk page and labelling various comments as "threats" or "threatening" (or "death threats", in extreme cases), as well as unilaterally attempting to reverse administrative actions—so I'm not sure if a simple 1RR would solve the problem, unless it also applied to his own talk page (which would be unusual). Personally, I'd like to hear from the editor on these matters. I've left him a quick note inviting him to do so, but it would be consistent with his past practice if my message is deleted and ignored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that any action should also limit Badagnani's removal of material from the talk page. By doing this, an editor can make it difficult for others to ascertain if they are currently the source of problems. This delays timely administrative action. That is to no one's benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Having had minimal interaction with Badagnani, but reading this as a cold record, what is proposed (with Vegaswikian's add) seems reasonable. I do vaguely recall Badagnani demanding 1 month blocks against admins at DRV, so that editor would probably conclude that a suitable remedy for a violation of probation after all these warnings and blocks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that Vegaswikian's suggestion would be helpful. Badagnani has most recently taken to archiving comments on his page rather than removing them, which is kind of a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose The first comment in this thread is a complaint about the way an editor removes notices fromt heir talk page. Now those trying to get him blocked are trying to put him on 1RR restriction? This looks like an end run around dispute resolution to get an easy fix to winning disputes with this long term good faith editor. If there is edit warring take it to the appropriate boards. This recommendation and its support from those in editing disputes with this editor is not a good look at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling everybody else to change their ways because one editor is different from the majority? He reverted an official admin closure of a discussion and you support his undoing it based on his own opinion? Where's the logic in that? The 1RR restriction should be well deserved, seeing as he's been given way too many chances, blocked many times, and still has yet to change his behavior. And the "strongest possible oppose" thing... I'm getting a bit suspicious here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking only for myself, I've had no real "content disputes" with the editor. My sole concerns have been with misplaced allegations of threats, unilateral reversions of administrative actions, repeated solicitation of me to reverse an administrative action, edit warring with other editors, etc. For me at least, this would not be a matter for DR; here seems far more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He reverts all the time, and basically always accuses everyone else of violating point or stuffing up the article by removing unsourced stuff. I don't care about his removing warnings. He knows what other people think of his actions bcause a few reverts are sign of a dispute. But if he can't revert then he can't go and do all this stuff against the consensus all the time and there would be no need to say anything to him. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey, it is quite surprising that you propose the sanction since he depends on you a lot (checkuser request or asking your opinion on Vietnamese topics). Anyway, I oppose your proposal because the one-way-sanction could be used for his disputers to game the system. (that is quite obvious expectation) I think enforceable community mentorship upon him could be better or there is no other way than RFRA. However, there is a possibility that he could leave the project for good given the fact that he left Commons after his misunderstanding of admins' roles there and OTRS made him feel to leave. So do I want him to be banned? Certainly, not.--Caspian blue 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of mentorship came up in one of the last AN/ANI threads. That would probably be an acceptable (potential)solution for many editors, but, 1) noone has volunteered their time to doing so, and 2) Badagnani has made no indication that he recognizes the problems some of his habits are causing, which would obviously be needed before he would accept anyone's mentorship.

I've been trying to assist in helping him to communicate what I think is his perspective, since April. I believe he is a good content contributor, and I'd be very dismayed to see him leave. But, his tendencies towards hyperbole, and his frequent refusals to admit the validity of alternative perspectives, or to even communicate at all, are creating continuous problems. We're not a monoculture, and Badagnani doesn't have to "conform"; but he does have to "adapt", in order for him to function as part of our "community". He has to adapt, simply because we cannot continue on like this indefinitely. I've left a final attempt at communication on his talkpage, to which I'm desperately hoping to receive a conciliatory ["willing to make concessions"] response. If he won't admit any fault at all, then I'm bereft of hope.

That said, I do believe that many of the editors who have interacted with him have been at as great a fault as he has, in regards to poor communication/mediation/civility skills, and I've been trying to point that out to some of them at the same time as trying to "translate" the perspectives from one to the other. I don't claim to be a good mediator, but some of the people who do, are terrible at it! And some of the people don't even try.

More generally, GTBacchus's draft of User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem is one of the clearest perspectives on these types of conflict that I have seen. Nobody has come up with a workable solution yet though, asfarasIknow. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing is done in this case, after a relatively high degree and volume of disruption, I guess I'll definitely be taking the issue to DR/ArbCom after the next major incident with the user. I do find it hard to believe that a neutral editor with no past encounters with the user would find this behavior acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a 1RR restriction would accomplish anything other than hastening this editor to the door. If that's what we're going to do, then it's better to just do it, call it a "community patience" ban, and move on. If that seems to be preferred by a consensus, then... ok.

If, on the other hand, we'd like to keep him on board, then. . . the current strategy is not working. He won't adapt unless he recognizes that he must do so. Individual editors or groups telling him hasn't worked. His block log shows 8-12 blocks, none longer than 48 hours. Hmm.

Here's an idea: Indef block him, and make it abundantly clear that it's not for any particular incident, but for a well-defined and clearly articulated list of chronic problem behaviors, which have exhausted the community's patience. Make it clear that he's welcome to return to editing upon recognition of the problem, and the opening of a dialogue on what to do about it. Heck, he could still edit content through a proxy, if he wanted. It's just the interactions with other editors that have to change.

It might not work, of course. It might just lead to an indef block and that's that. The current strategy, where would-be mentor after would-be mentor is worn out on someone who's convinced that the problem is always everyone else... it's not the best, I think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Won't do much good anyways as he never really responds to anything, just removing the notices under a claim of being attacked and recreates things and the like if he wants, all because he knows better than the admins, the consensus, and everyone who disagrees with him. If you truly believe in MPOV (especially "it is necessary" to do things), nothing short of a full block is going to stop you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean meta:MPOV, right? You just posted a dead link :P GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Yes—the block need not be irrevocable. Don't block him from editing his own talk page, and when he says there he's ready to have a dialogue, then we can go from there. But please, whatever is decided, someone do something. With so much history, it seems ridiculous not to do something here that will move us forward and get us out the vicious circle we've been in with the user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a complete break from editing the areas he normally edits would be most useful - a couple of weeks to a month should do the trick, whether it's imposed here or at some other chain of DR. Either way, I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I support an indef block, but it's because I think his behavior crossed the line of warranting it a very long time ago, not because I think there's any chance he'll actually suddenly become communicative and cooperative. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and he's only persisted in acting this way because the worst that happens is that he occasionally gets blocked for a few days, and most of the time he just gets away with it completely without even having to defend himself, or acknowledge the discussion, at ANI or RFC or anywhere else. If an indef block prompted him to improve his attitudes, that'd be great, although I'm sure he's capable of pretending to have changed long enough to get the block lifted and then immediately returning to his old ways if there's nobody ready to watch him and call him on it. Propaniac (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then before he is unblocked, he should be issued a statement along the lines of: if he goes back to his original problematic behavior, he may be reblocked without warning or have the case taken to ArbCom. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. At this point I doubt just another 24 hour block or 'discussion' is going to help change his behavior. Maybe not indef, but definitely make it a long duration, so that his patience will wear out and he will (hopefully) leave a well-thought out message explaining how his past behavior is inappropriate and such. I have the feeling that since he's only been blocked for very short periods of time occasionally, he takes advantage of that fact to (for lack of other words) disrupt Wikipedia. I don't want another editor clashing with him again. It's like deja vu, honestly. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Propaniac above has quite a similar idea... GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Take the issue to ArbCom. Here has no uninvolved people in contacting with Badagnani except Ricky81682 (or he may dispute with Badagnani in the past that I don't know). So that everyone should be evaluated on the equal ground. Indef.block and then what? Do you guys really think that he would suddenly say "I'm sorry for what I've done and said to you even though, I suffer long term and persistent following by some of people who endorse to block me" after indefinitely blocked? Except the mere blocking, there is no solution presented so far to regulate Badagnani's problematic behaviors. I think PHG and Mattisse's ArbCom case could be good models for him, so take the issue to ArbCom instead.--Caspian blue 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except what will ArbCom do? Give him a block like we proposed? Heck at ArbCom he may be even banned, not to mention the big hassle there is dealing with all the conflicts, involved editors, etc. It's just going to lead him to a worse fate on Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom is a good place for resolving this kind of conduct issues. The ArbCom may not or may ban him, or assign enforceable mentorship or civility patrol to him, and other disputers could be judged in the same enforcement as well. The indef.block suggestion at this time is not fair because he did not commit dreadful things that he deserve "indefinitely block" (though different from infinite block) which completely disregards his whole contribution to Wikipedia. You know I've been disputing with him a lot for his original research and many many other things, but I think he should have at least an opportunity to speak out for himself. He rarely comes to defend himself whenever ANI calls him because in his viewpoint, all are to drive him away. Besides, what idea can you have give us after he would be indefinitely blocked?--Caspian blue 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because he made many contributions to Wikipedia doesn't mean he somehow has some higher status. And frankly it's now more than just his behavior; he's reverted an admin closing of a discussion. That alone is not acceptable. If he wants to stay then that's up to him; we're not saying he can never come back, he has a choice in whether or not he would change his behavior to come back. Besides, we wouldn't know what his current stance is anyway; any discussion that contains something related to a block or restriction is either removed on his talk page as "threatening" or he simply never participates. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why I suggest you or other complainers to take the issue to ArbCom. If you believe you have behaved to him by abiding the rule, then you do not need to be afraid of ArbCom. Regardless of what you and we think of him, he has a right to defend himself at least once.You also do not answer my question; so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on? I suggested you to look into Mattisse and PHG's ArbCom cases, they are pretty strictly mentored by the Committe.--Caspian blue 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on?" I can't speak for anyone else, but that's certainly my interpretation of the notion. At some point we say the value of his contributions isn't worth letting him do whatever he wants. (And my question to you would be: What's your idea if the issue goes to ArbCom and he refuses to participate there?) Propaniac (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If he would not come to ArbCom, then he would be indeed doomed.--Caspian blue 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm trying to say is that there is no need for ArbCom (as of yet). ArbCom is an absolute, last-resort situation where nothing else can fix the problem. Looking at all the cases so far it's much more hassle than it's worth, and it's not an idea you can freely throw around. I've already answered your question from the start. Badagnani is welcome to return anytime. If he wishes to come back to Wikipedia and change his ways, fine. If he wishes to leave, fine. If he pretends to change his ways and then go back to the same old disruptive editing, it's then that we should start an ArbCom case. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you and I could not reach any agreement on this. So do you think making him have an indef.block log is a best way to fix his problem at this time? What if the block log only serves him to have much humiliation, so he would not change his attitude? The idea of filing RfAf has been suggested by many before, so it is hardly my "free-trowing" thing that you're accused. Mentorship and civility parole for him have been also suggested so far, but none of uninvolved admins or editors were willing to do so, but I think ArbCom could enforce it without the disgraceful indef.blocking him.--Caspian blue 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure what you're on about. But in any case I doubt the theoretical ArbCom case would go anywhere seeing as he just lets every complaint slide by him and let his supporters do all the work. As for what you're saying about the block log, eh, it's unlikely, and again I'm not sure what you're saying there. Also I'm sorry if the "freely throw" thing insulted you, that was never my intention. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The people who endorse the proposal are all "involved party", so this so-called "Let's the community (the involved people) decide his fate" is not only ignoring the premise but also not a fair play. That is what I'm saying.--Caspian blue 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as an uninvolved editor, I've made a fair play judgement of the situation and reading what's going on here, I think an indef block would be for the best until he agrees not to continue with this behavior.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, well. It appears once again the ANI report and discussion are going to be archived and dismissed without any actual resolution, or any consequences for Badagnani's actions or his complete lack of interest in participation. You can't deny that the strategy tends to work out very well for him. Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block as an uninvolved editor. Bagdanani has created a chilling effect for those editors who which to discuss differences of opinion with him. His behaviour has to change, and the first step is to acknowledge that this is a problem that he has to deal with. Until he can do so, I don't see how he can edit collaboratively here. Auntie E. 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for one month for chronic communication issues. This took forever to research, and I still couldn't see an indef block. That should be the next step. There needed to be a long "we are serious" block first. Awaiting fallout. Tan | 39 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've hardly agreed with Tanthalas39, but I can agree with his assessment at this time that Badagnani does not reach an indef.block hit yet. So Tanthalas39's blocking of Badagnani for one month looks a reasonable course to awake him to look upon himself rather than stigmatizing of him with indef.block. Badagnani can use {{Unblock}} if he feels to appeal an unblock but he has to pledge to communicate with people in better manners.--Caspian blue 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to follow what I suggested above; a month's break from where he edits usually. Kudos for not letting this discussion drag on again, for longer, here or elsewhere. It'll be a long "wait". ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DanaUllman (talk · contribs)

Dana Ullman (wikipedia article: Dana Ullman) makes a living promoting homeopathy, and was banned for one year, by the arbitration committee, for the extreme disruption he caused by promoting it here. He has recently returned, and, immediately upon returning, continued his behaviours of attacking any studies that found against homeopathy.

The man makes a living promoting homeopathy. The obnly way he's going to ever come under Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give up his living. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while I remember the issues a year asgo from reading up on them here, the two posts he's made to that page aren't of the evil nature you suggest. One is him providing first hand knowledge on the talk page about the faults in a study, and from his explanation, they may in fact have some serious issues, and another explaining the idea. I will concede that the second is phrased in the style of an advocate for 'the other side'. but not like a lunatic. These two comments on the talk page alone aren't enough to convince me he hasn't learned.ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - if there hadn't been a huge thread, in which it was shown that the objections to the protocol only emerged afer it failed, and were approved before. Frankly, after months of everyone having to spend all their time dealing with Dana Ullman, tracking down studies and information which it almost inevitably turned out he vastly over-hyped,a nd which often did not say what he claimed - have a look at the Homeopathy case evidence page - having him back is enough to make one scream. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Dana, while he was indeed revisiting an old battle, he didn't bring the subject up himself - he was replying to a thread started by another editor the day before. His particular COI with respect to this specific issue has been pointed out on the talk page. On the other hand, he does have an obvious COI WRT the whole subject of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the user page, there's a topic ban mentioned. I only took a quick look, but it sounds like it's still in effect. If this is the case, someone needs to remind him of this and tell him to stay away from the associated articles and talk pages. The right venue for him to contest studies is in the academic world, not here. Friday (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban needs looking at, and also WP:COI. He is an actor in the section being discussed, so probably should only provide information on that subject (the ABC/BBC programs). Verbal chat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the topic ban? There was a total one year ban which expired this week, I can't see a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was given a three-month topic ban by Vassayana before the Arbcom total ban -- obviously this expired long ago. Note that the Arbcom decision allows any uninvolved admin to impose new sanctions if such are deemed necessary, after appropriate warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It sure seems like the kind of thing that should be re-instituted, permanently. Knowing nothing other than who he is, I think we can safely conclude that he's not interested in neutrality with respect to his pet topic. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking Vassyana to clarify the topic ban - seems like it was initially 3 months, then a full indef ban was instituted, then lifted (but with the topic ban still in effect), followed by an arbcom-imposed year in the clink. I also notified Mr. Ullman of this discussion, out of courtesy. My personal opinion is to let him contribute on talk pages, but re-institute a topic or full ban if he starts showing us the full monty again. I will note, though, he is jumping back into one of his old favorite crusades - namely, the 20/20 incident, which is a viper's nest of reliable source, conflict of interest, and BLP issues. I wish I could point editors to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence to get a feel for Mr. Ullman's conduct, but despite multiple assurances from arbitrators that it will be undeleted it has not been. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I make a living from homeopathy, I also have a long academic record, including writing a chapter in an Oxford University Press textbook (2009) on "Integrative Oncology," writing a chapter on homeopathy and pain management in "Weiner's Pain Management" (one of the leading authoritative textbooks on pain management), and many other peer-review articles and chapters. I may have made some mistakes of advocacy in the past, but I have been punished and have learned. If wikipedia will choose to topic-ban me, it must also consider topic-banning many many other experts who also make some type of living from their expertise, including many medical doctors and medical researchers (and on and on). And I wonder then can and should be done with all of the anonymous people who edit here and who might theoretically deserve a topic ban (needless to say, I am not recommending this). Instead, I believe that it makes more sense to topic ban those people based on their behavior and actions rather than on theoretical grounds. I sincerely hope that wikipedia be careful in hearing the "testimony" of those editors who I happen to show are not providing accurate information on homeopathy, as is what happened with this initial complaint. DanaUllman^Talk 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other crap exists, even in some textbooks. Just because some publisher was foolish enough to allow homeopathic nonsense some mention doesn't mean we have to allow its very active promotion here. Promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience is not welcome here, while defending proven and documented reality is status quo and expected. Why? Because Wikipedia aspires to become a serious encyclopedia, and not a Conservapedia or Altienonsenseapedia. Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was all set to support his access to talk pages, but he went right into his SOAPBOXing here, which shows that he's unable to discuss this rationally. He asks that people be banned for their actions, not their office, but even on this matter, he fails. He seems more concerned with his ego than with either actual science, or improving the article. He frames his comment in the manner of 'I was there, therefore I am qualified to both correct this, and MORE qualified than others to write an article on this topic.' Even in the last two days' comments, he goes on with the whole 'Homeopathic science is done in a secret and different way which cannot be reproduced by non-believers' jive. It's demonstrative of his inability to hold rational discourse on a topic which for him is a faith and religion; like religion for many, discussion must be an 'us and them' not an objective examination, which is what's required for good Wikipedia editing. Therefore, I am convinced that he should be the subject of an indefinite topic ban, one which will, in practice, likely be a permanent ban. His view is simply at loggerheads with our intentions here to provide solid, cited information. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with dana Ullman in the past. while i do feel like his homeopathy advaocacy can have led to problems in the past, I do feel that he makes an important point here. essentially, he is being censured by past conduct and his profession rather than his current behavior. according to our blocking policy, blocking is preventative not punitive so I feel that he shouldnt be blocked from editing Wikipedia completely just because he MIGHT offend in the future. Rather, i propose that the mentioned topic ban be commuted to probation, in which case if he does behave unethically then an unvinovolved Administrator may impose sanctions such as a topic ban. I am worried that we are using a WP:ANI to win a content dispute in Homeopathy, which was a problem that myself and other homeopathy editors dealt with extensively to our detriment two years ago and I think that we can prevent by being less aggressive and more preventative now. User:Smith Jones 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Ullman caused about 6 months of disruption last year, over dozens of articles. If the evidence page of the Homeopathy case was undeleted, you'd see that he lied or mislead about the content of sources, claimed that an article for a very, very obscure journal without its articles online was the leading journal in the field, and that that his summary of it MUST be included (While not providing the article, nor mentioing the journal had a section specificaly devoted to - I forget the exact term, but it was something like speculative research on unproven concepts. He caused a couple weeks of disruption claiming that Linde's retraction of results in a later paper wasn't a retraction becuase that exact word didn't appear, and so the original study - whose results he liked - should be used in the article without updates, etc, etc. He and a few others had made the situaton at homeopathy such a horrible mess that admins weren't even willing to go there and deal with clearly-documented problems with pro-homeopathic users, because if they did, a large group would swoop down to attack. Back in that time, it ws widely said that the only thing enforced there was WP:CIVIL, and only if you weren't a homeopath (certain homeopaths were allowed to engage in extreme incivility, regularly). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, if it matters, he also showed up off-wiki on my blog after I posted about homeopathy on Citizendium, back in February, which was kind of creepy. I'll provide a link in e-mail upon request to enough administrators that they can confirm, I'd rather not link publicly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't read too much into that. He regularly turns up in the comments of blog posts with any kind of critical view of homoeopathy. A couple of recent examples: [11] [12]. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, DanaUllman is being put up for a ban because he's a religious zealot, and his religion is more important to him than anything else. This leads to a total inability to deal with things rationally. For example, he came to my talk page to attack me for paraphrasing his attitude as being an unattributed and unreal quote. Had he bothered to use those vaunted writing skills he brags of, he'd know the difference between ' and ", but he doesn't. this same irrational reaction is brought to anyone who brings scientific debunking to the Homeopathy article. Because it 'hurts' his religion (whether Homeopathy or profit is the underlying religion is up to you). This means that like all the other religious zealot issues we deal with, like the images of Muhammad, one side can spend the rest of eternity explaining scholarship, dispassionate writing, citation, applications to a wide audience and so on, and the other side will shout "MY RELIGION! NO BLASPHEMY" over and over, which is exactly what we have going on here. DanaUllman just shouts it with more and bigger words than most. Same principle underlying the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In due respect, I do not think of homeopathy as a "religion," and actually, I have a good academic record. The fact that UC Berkeley's alumni magazine chose to feature me and my work amongst the millions of its alumni is an honor. I feel that I have something to contribute here, and I have sought to better understand and learn the rules of wikipedia. To be honest, it seems that it is ThuranX who has an axe to grind here. I expressed concern to him privately that he put quotes in a statement above that I have never said NOR implied, and I simply did not think that this assertion was accurate or fair. Whereas double quotes would suggest a direct quote, the use of single quotes suggests a paraphrase, and yet, he never referenced any such paraphrased statement. Instead of apologizing or seeking to correct the situation, he simply went on the attack again. I told him in my post at his user-page that I wanted to assume good faith, and yet, he doesn't seem to AGF back. I do not plan to be a very active editor here, but when appropriate, I may do some editing. I will probably work more on Talk pages. That said, I hope that admins here watch some of the people here who seem so lividly anti-homeopathy. Livid is no place for an encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm anti-bad biased writing, not anti-homeopathy. You refuse to listen to others, abide by good writing styles, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, adn continually go on the offensive against anyone who doesn't acquiesce to your POV. You are an inherently biased editor on this topic, and you spend the vast majority of your time here agitating for a Pro-Homeopathy article. All critics are flat out wrong in your view, all outsiders are wrong because they don't understand the 'science' like you claim do, and anyone else is just getting in the way of you and the 'truth'. I'm sick of seeing such zealotry on Wikipedia, because contrary to your claims that a Pro-Homeopathic bias tot he article would help more people by saving their lives, such an article does NOT help the uninitiated reader to become more educated and learn both sides of an issue. You continually work to obstruct good writing, NPOV articles, and to antagonize those who don't agree with you. You had a one year ban for it, and your immediate actions on return are to run right back to the front lines and start it up again. Wikipedia is better off without you. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

believe me, Thuran is udnerstand your point. the fanatcisim of one side of the alternative medicine debate that I participated in last year was practicaly obscene. People were banned and blocked and others wer accused of murder because they promoted Homeopathy. I remember an ex-user, Randall Blackamoor, who was banned after lashing out at both sides and accusing Wikipedia of being a murder because it even had an article on Homeopathy in the first place! I can see why Dana Ullmans presence is unwelcome. However, comparing him to a religious blitz then what the Thing is to do is to always follow Wikipedias policy scrupulously instead of using it to create revenge on Dana Ullman for his past and not his present sins. I believe that an uninvolved administrator can review his episodes and and if he is found to be disruptive BASED ON HIS CURRENT ESSAYS then he should be topic-banned (from Homeopathy only -- he has contributed extensively and constructively outside of Homeopathy so he should be allowed to remained). I am anti- a hardline on any user. Just follow the rules and the right thing User:Smith Jones 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence for these extensive and constructive contributions outside homoeopathy. While he has edited other articles, they have pretty much invariably been either articles connected with homeopathy, or articles with references to homoeopathy, or articles or into which references to homoeopathy have been inserted. Brunton (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As with all COI editors, it would be great if Dana could consider editing in areas completely unrelated to homeopathy. He must have some hobbies or something. It would open a new perspective for him, it would be a chance for him to prove that he can cooperate with others in a constructive atmosphere. I think it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. Hans Adler 09:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban of Dana Ullman from all homeopathy pages, broadly construed, so as to avoid a repeat of past behaviour which is already evident. Verbal chat 08:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, before the 1-year ban Dana Ullman got on people's nerves at homeopathy talk pages, including mine. I haven't seen anything problematic from him since then. Since when is an actor in an event reported by Wikipedia, who is open about the COI, not allowed to point out politely and in few paragraphs that he doesn't agree with the article, giving reasons? As a general principle that's the best thing that can happen, in order to ensure that we interpret our sources correctly and fairly.

Is it now acceptable to run to ANI with nothing? I will keep this in mind and come here to ask for BullRangifer to be topic banned the next time he says something outrageously stupid on the homeopathy talk page, or makes an unfounded personal attack which he is not prepared to take back. (See User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 10#Personal attacks for some of the details, with pointers to others. Or just look at his 22 July post above to get an impression of his influence on the talk page climate.) Hans Adler 09:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agreeee that the people who see the WP:ANI as an excuse to punish people they dont like. User:Smith Jones 23:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Hans Adler should take his personal aggravation against me somewhere else, and not misuse this thread to attack me. I have made only one comment here and see no reason for his attack. He should remove it and stay on topic. Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a general principle that if you comment on an ANI thread your own behaviour may also be examined. You have no reason to complain after your inflammatory nonsensical remarks in this section. Hans Adler 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban based on COI makes makes no sense. Mds and pharmaceutical companies employees should not edit medical articles? Most editors do not use their real name - how do we know that there is no COI? This is a content dispute. Dana believes that the editors dont interpret the sources correctly and fairly and thats why they want him out. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too quick off the mark. Dana sometimes provides useful input, though one has to look past his self-aggrandizement and be careful to check that the sources he cites actually say what he claims. Let's wait to see how things work out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing dispute over the article New York Radical Feminists over what several editors (User:Iamcuriousblue (aka Peter Werner, that is, myself) and User:Shadowjams) feel are problems with original research and editing based on unverifiable claims of first-hand knowledge of the group in question on the part of another editor User:Ldsnh2 (see note for associated accounts). The reason I am coming here rather than seeking out request for discussion or otherwise starting the mediation process is that Ldsnh2 engages in ongoing edit warring and behavior that meets most, if not all, or the criteria for disruptive editing. The editor engages in an ongoing pattern of personal attack toward other editors by name on the editors user page (User:Ldsnh2) and on Talk:New_York_Radical_Feminists. The editor continually removes citations referring to Alice Echols Daring to be Bad, a widely-cited source about the history of NYRF, based on her assertion that the book is biased and inaccurate. However, the editor's only reference for their view that the book is inaccurate is claimed personal first-hand knowledge on the part of Ldsnh2.

Since I am trying to avoid further edit warring myself, I am refraining from further editing of the article for the time being, but am seeking outside intervention.

(Note: the editor also edits under the following IP accounts: User:75.0.193.152, User:70.235.86.209, User:75.13.228.250, User:71.139.149.187.)

(This has been previously reported as Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ldsnh2, without resolution.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Ldsnh2 is interesting. I'm pretty sure User:Shadowjams feels like he's in good company. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this editor appears to lack critical wP:knowledge. he has repeatedly used an incorrect version of the {{cite}} which disigures the article ! User:Smith Jones 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the user page. Attacks against other editors are not allowed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed two sections from Talk:New York Radical Feminists for being violations of WP:TALK as inappropriate attack sections and have asked the editor for comment on another section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. You can block me or not. Wikipedia has no hope of gender equity from my experience with four individuals who took issue with a New York Radical Feminists article reviewed by many other Wikipedians between November 2007 and July 21, 2009. Any more work I do toward any attempts at gender equity here is a sinful waste of G-d's time. Ldsnh2 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a soapbox. If you want advocacy, go somewhere else. We are focusing on neutrality, and that is based on verifiable sources. If you cannot accept that, then I'm sorry for you. You clearly can be very helpful here, but if you refuse to work in a civil manner with others, I am not going to allow you to continue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've restored Ldsnh2's removal of all their comments at Talk:New York Radical Feminists here (including using an IP address). Even if they aren't always useful, removing them all isn't productive. -- Ricky81682

(talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Report me to whoever, block me, ban me,, edit out things I write, edit back in things I delete, write assumptions about how you may think I may think or feel, question my integrity, expertise knowledge, research work, life experiences, whatever you want to do, whoever or whatever you are, just do it. I do not care. I am powerless over this being ganged up on by this group of men and in the bigger picture based on opinions of Wikipedia by a New York City librarian and her colleagues, whatever anyone does here on Wikipedia because of such things is not important. My or perhaps anyone's work here on gender equity issues--also because of what I've seen of unreferenced statements about living feminists that put them in a negative light and the lack of criteria for page numbers and quotation from sources in references for writings about secondary sources opinions or analysis or commentary (that is, not just simple facts like "who, what, where when" events, dates or places or the like)as required in other research work--is a sinful waste of G-d's time.Ldsnh2 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps your efforts should be directed toward helping fix such problems rather than engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory edits, which does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of any article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What be a subservient grunt work "secretary" schlepping to the library to find references for the materials you and your men friends deem fit for the current NYRF article? No way! LOL! Ldsnh2 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of being a good Wikipedia editor is willingness to do "grunt work" and sweat the details, as I'm doing right now, fact-checking the NYRF article. But in any event, my point stands – you criticize other articles for having unreferenced, problematic statements (which is essentially an Other Stuff Exists argument) and rather than making a positive effort to make improvements, you use that as an excuse for retaliatory tit-for-tat game playing. Might I suggest you either make some positive effort to improve what you see as problems with Wikipedia or at least try and reach consensus with editors who you are warring with, or, barring that, make good on your oft-repeated statement that you're going to take your efforts elsewhere. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get the idea that people, male or female, with knowledge, experience, and research skills and resources about a subject go through considerable public domain resources to share information with the Internet public--in my case every New York Radical Feminist newsletter and conference document as well as ancillary groups documents, as well as news articles and three books written by NYRFers and long distance phone calls to two NYRFers to verify dats--on Wikipedia. They then have their work OK'd from the start by Wikipedians and make edits to follow Wikipedian criteria. They then have their work on Wikipedia reviewed and OK'd for a year and half.

After this, they then do not care an iota about Wikipedia and have no interest in it or its further success when their work researching scores of resources is picked on and undone and replaced by a few quotes chiefly from one book. They move on and find other places to post their articles. They cannot delete their Wikipedia accounts but could if they were able to. To them, Wikipedia is at best a disappointment if not something to downgrade in discussions with their friends and colleagues. Period, end of story. My November 2007-July 21, 2009 article based only on listings of activities, dates and places, not personal recollections of any biased NYRF participant including myself, has been greatly revised also with more references and will be posted on archive.org under "radical feminism" by July 31.Ldsnh2 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and sadly, your actions have likely done more harm than good for your cause. Wikipedia is not the place to carry signs and claim sexism, because that's a load of crap around here. Best of luck to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think, unfortunately, what you don't get is the concept of No Original Research and the fact that much of what you continue to insist on constitutes original research. For godsakes, your version of the article claimed personal emails as a source. If you have even the most cursory idea about Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, you'd know that personal emails as a reference, and any statement supported solely by this, is not remotely acceptable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, you keep insisting that your earlier version of the article was "OK'd by Wikipedians". Quite simply, it wasn't, because there is no formal "OKing" of an article, other than perhaps the kind of evaluation of an article as a Good Article or Feature Article (and I know the NYRF article has not been a candidate for either of these). Just because an article has been around for a certain amount of time without anybody raising objections does not mean its "OK'd" in any sense. Many problematic edits stay around for years before anybody a) notices them, and b) takes action. This is especially true of articles on fairly obscure topics, like this one. The kind of thorough going-over and fact-checking this article is undergoing right now is probably the first detailed review this article has ever had. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the main source of the New York Radical Feminists article "Daring to Be Bad" as part of research for my archive.org article and focused on the pages that deal with the split of the Stanton-Anthony Brigade from NYRF that are referred to in this article. There are recollections from the members of other brigades who took issue with leaders, Firestone and Koedt--Brownmiller--and other members of Stanton-Anthony--Crothers and Bikman (with whom I was personally acquainted and very much liked) who also provided their recollections of how Firestone and Koedt felt. However, no where on those pages are there any quotatons or other information provided directly by Firestone and Koedt. In those days women who left feminist groups often wrote a long piece about why If Echols had found and quoted such a document from either Firestone or Koedt in her pages about this change in NYRF, her book and its reference here would have credibility and validity.

Without such direct statements or writings from Firestone or Koedt whom I never did meet but respect and want respected, any writings about them in this or any other book and why they did this or that are just hearsay, gossip etc. and not valid information to be included anywhere including in Wikipedia. The constant use of this one book as a main resource with its based upon such sloppy research this being just one example but a glaring one in and of itself invalidates the current New York Radical Feminists article. The article should be deleted until a wider range of resources are used for a quality Wikipedia article.Ldsnh2 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any verifiable, published sources at all about the supposed inaccuracies of Echols book? Or another verifiable published source that provides an account of the history of NYRF that substantially differs from that of Echols? Or is this entirely based on your first-hand knowledge, which we're supposed to take as gospel, without any way of verifying this. Once again, what part of No Original Research don't you understand? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The editors User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:Sam Weller retaliate for this ANI and make RfC about me [13]. Rob does 100 edits on it in two days more then he usually does in months, Ward20 does 31 edits more then usually in a week. Most important thing on Wikipedia for them is hunting me and banning me. Why?? RetroS1mone talk 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response: As can be seen from the edit summaries of both the initial ANI submission and the initial gathering of data for the RfC, the edits are a mere 7 minutes apart. The RfC was already underway when RetroS1mone submitted her ANI, and since the Sandbox now contained concerns specific to her editing, she was appropriately notified. The evidence will or will not speak for itself once the submission is made, but as stated in the Sandbox, it's my hope that this can be resolved by means well short of banning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Response: As can be seen from the edit history for RobinHood70 and Ward20, it is not surprise for me, Rob pastes RfC "data" onto a sandbox 7 minutes after I put up the ANI, some times i think he is watching me 24 hours a day. Where is the "data" from, I do not know but i do not doubt a certain banned user, is helping with the RfC and sending "data", this banned user sent me a threatening email last month and said they were talking with allies still at Wiki. It is not hard, to paste data in 7 minutes when you are monitoring a persons' edits real-time. RetroS1mone talk 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Response: Correction. So far, there are three users making the RfC, apparently because an earlier attempt to negotiate with Retro failed [14]:RobinHood70, Ward20 and Tekaphor (even though Retro has now deleted Tekaphor from the ANI). I'm listed merely as 'endorsing the cause for concern' in the RfC, because I have not been part of any previous dispute resolution process. However, Retro has alleged that I have hounded her, without a shred of evidence, so I fully endorse the RfC. I doubt the RfC is retaliation for the ANI, just the result of months of cumulative frustration and disbelief at the non-stop scattergun name-calling deployed by this editor. Sam Weller (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors, my opinion, is harassing and hounding me. Most are editing mostly one topic chronic pain and fatigue conditions, and for months mostly are following me and taking out my edits. They have strong POV on chronic conditions, that is OK with me!!, and some from them use Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism, for example [15]. Group includes User:Ward20, User:RobinHood70, User:Sam Weller, and specially a IP editor User:71.212.10.108/User:66.244.69.1 that calhttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=10ls me "hey sexy lady" and talks about my weight "big sexy girl" [16] and puts things on my talk page [17] [18] and the IP talk page [19] and follows me around to articles I edit and they do not edit before [20]. The IP was blocked twice for these things and is not new on Wikipedia, i do not know all names this person is using, or when it is one from the named editors that is following me.

I do not care they call me names and fight about edits on their articles but now every edit i make, i need suspect, these people will follow me and delete me and argue with me also when it is not an article they edit before, it is like Wikipedia editing for them is hunting me, like the first thing they do on log in is, see what i am editing today to go there and confront me. I am also suspect, they try to provoke me BC some said before they want to ban me. It is making contribution very difficult. I do not say I am a perfect editor, i am learning alot but I am not all ways perfect and i can be very strong some times, but i do not think this treating of me is right.

Examples from hounding just in last weeks,

• I give a Wikilink in article i never did edit before, chest pain bc I learned from reliable sources that medically unexplained symptoms can be chest pain, same day Ward20, editor who in June calls me "it" and "this" [21] is there reverting [22], and calls my link "WP:EGG" all though "no definite cause" and "medically unexplained symptoms" are synonym with each other. Ward20 did never edit chest pain before and obvious, is just following me to delete my edits.

• I add a medical review on Malingering at Malingering, next editor who is there is Ward20 [23] and W20 does not suggest new words or change things, W20 deletes everything also the reference that is MEDRS and accuses me of POV when it is right from reference. Ward20 did never edit this article before [24]. Ward20 also tells other editors what pages i edit at the CFS talk page so they can follow me to [25].

• I add information to Culture-bound syndrome, next editor is Ward20 who never did edit that article before and Ward20 reverts [26], says it is unsourced and "inaccurate" but does not take any thing out from rest of section where every thing does not have source, is only deleting my stuff. On talk page, Ward20 uses words like "for pity sake" [27] and User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page. Tekaphor and Ward20 did never edit this article or talk before me.

• I link to article Medically unexplained symptoms from Chronic fatigue syndrome, that is a Medically unexplained syndrome. User:Sam Weller, User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:71.212.10.108 who was blocked for 48 hours on disruptive editing and harassment of me, and User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before.

• I did not edit Jamie Doran for near one year, on July 22 i edit. User:RobinHood70 is there same day [28] and did never edit the article before. This article is not a relation to chronic pain conditions, there is no godly reason to follow me there but RobinHood is monitoring me and following every thing I do. Then RobinHood says "I have no particular interest in this page—I just made some quick improvements to the article while I was here—so I'll leave it to you and the other editors of the page to figure out what's most appropriate." but when i edit again, RobinHood comes back and accuses me of things i did not say and says i am "biting newcomer" and warns me on my talk page.

• I ask User:Ward20 [29] pls stop following me around Wiki. Ward20 said they edited these pages before, that is not true. I ask User:RobinHood70 to explain why [30] user changes my comment title and says it is OK to follow me around, and next day they do the same thing again.

Do I over-react, please advise me how to resolve the problem, thank you very much. RetroS1mone talk 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the many users accused by this ANI, I will respond to those edits for which I am responsible, and I invite commentary from others if there are things I should have done better. In point of fact, however, I am preparing my own RfC or ANI discussion towards RetroS1mone at this very moment. RetroS1mone has previously been warned by multiple editors, both on and off her talk page for behaviour (e.g., User_talk:RetroS1mone#Suggestion).

• There has been an anonymous IP harassing RetroS1mone at her talk page and elsewhere, and I and others have in fact been reverting these comments, for which she thanked me.

• The fact that RetroS1mone added links to medically unexplained physical symptoms in several articles should probably explain why this drew attention and people started editing that article as well. The article in and of itself is dubious in my mind (though that's under discussion on the appropriate talk page), and adding it into a wide variety of other controversial articles, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity was seen by many as a POV fork to add weight to a pro-psychological POV. (At the time the additions were made, the MUPS article very much had a psychological tone to it, and still has a very lopsided view where one section is all about psychological causation and others maintain more of an even physical and/or psychological approach.)

• I explained my edits to the Jamie Doran page when RetroS1mone accused me of hounding/stalking her here. Rather than acknowledge that explanation, she has chosen to bring it up here. I was content to ignore the page up until she bit a newcomer, accusing him of a conflict of interest and implying that this brand-new account might be a single-purpose account [31], at which time I warned her on her talk page, which she reverted with the accusation of "i remove harassing by stalker" [32].

• The accusation of hounding was addressed by the above, but just to save people some reading: Due to recent communication, RetroS1mone's talk page was in my Watchlist. I read all diffs in my Watchlist, as I've indicated to RetroS1mone previously. When I saw a discussion about that article on her talk page, I was curious to see what was up. While there, I made non-controversial format changes, and verified one very minor fact readily apparent in the source available (the second source was dead and a {{dead link}} tag was added). [33] In no way did I make any changes or contribute to any discussion in a controversial or negative manner apart from the above-mentioned bite warning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I think what RetroS1mone perceives as harassment/hounding by a group of editors is in fact several individual editors who have concerns over an apparently unilateral editing style in which consensus is rarely ever sought or respected, and those editors are taking appropriate actions per Wikipedia policies and guidelines to address these issues. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also mentioned, although it doesn't look like I'm one of the main editors in question (probably because most of my disputes with RetroS1mone have been limited to the talkpages). Some of the accusations made by RetroS1mone (R1 for short), now and in the past, appear somewhat distorted or jumping to conclusions:

• R1's first given example ([34]) is of a short conversation on RobinHood70's userpage about webhosting, but R1 labels it as "social networking for patient activism" despite that no actual activism was going on or that Ward20 never specified what the webhosting is for. Perhaps Ward20 should have emailed RobinHood70 instead, but so what? At first it might appear odd why R1 decided to begin with that example, until one considers that; (a) R1 believes Wikipedia is under attack from some anti-psych "cabal" of POV/COI patient activists, (b) R1 has occasionally reverted other peoples edits due to such mere speculation about motives, with a tendency to focus disproportionately on the editor rather than the edit.

• The next major point seems to involve two themes: (1) a "group of editors", (2) "hounding". I'm not mentioned specifically, but I will say that these accusations of "they" have been an ongoing problem. The first few following points about "hounding" seem to be about other editors (not me), so I'll let those editors speak for themselves, but perhaps what I say about my involvement will provide some perspective?

• When discussing the Culture-bound syndrome article, R1 claims that other editors and "User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page". However, all I did was post [35] a short sentence about an epidemiological study of CFS in Nigeria, there was no "arguing" by me or even any suggestion of how to interpret the cited study.

• When discussing the Medically unexplained symptoms article, R1 notes that other editors and "User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before". I did indeed make one relatively minor edit [36] some time after posting ([37] 3 edits but for the same single comment) on the talkpage. However, it needs to be understood, as RobinHood70 already covered, that the issue of R1 embedding "medically unexplained symptoms" into a range of Wikipedia articles was spilling over from a debate at the Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome page, so obviously people started visiting the actual main article of the topic in question?

The Jamie Doran article has nothing to do with me, so I don't need to comment. Anyway, WP:HOUND states that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." When considering R1's claims of being "followed", it needs to be kept in mind that R1 has a history of disputes where some of their edits were successfully reverted for being "original research" or not properly representing the sources. Also, as RobinHood70 explained above, it can be convenient to monitor other editors' contribution histories as a way to keep up to date. Another important note is that R1 does over-react and often makes false accusations against other editors, which is a whole topic of conversation in itself. Of course, this doesn't mean that all of R1's accusations are false, and occasionally there have also been apologies from R1.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I striked Tekaphor in my ANI bc Tekaphor has been the most fair. RetroS1mone talk 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty, individually or collectively. I have nothing to add to my reply to R1 from earlier this year [38]. Sam Weller (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've checked my edit history, and found my first contact with R1 dates from October 2008. Reading Simon Wessely for the second time, I noticed that a tag requiring citations had been in place for a year, but had not been acted upon. So I tagged individual unreferenced statements as a reminder. Starting a new Talk section headed Crazy tag section, R1 accused me of being "some one who does not like Wessely and does not want any thing positive about him in article. Can we pls take this mean spirited stuff out?" All that in response to a repeat request for citations. I did not bother to react to R1's rudeness, false assumptions and accusations of bad faith. But since R1 is making accusations here, I'd like it on record as an instance of the multiple issues surrounding R1's editing that I have been aware of since October 2008. Sam Weller (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out<RetroS1mone notified me I was being discussed. IMO the user's edit summaries and talk page edits are often accusatory of other editors or their motives if they have a differing opinion.[39][40] The editing of RetroS1mone is prolific and intelligent yet often tendentious and not verifiable to sources in articles, on talk pages, and edit summaries. Examples: RetroS1mone adds WP:OR about hypochondriasis to the Chronic Fatigue syndrome article,[41] in the Malingering article the "Category:Mental illness diagnosis" was wrongly re-added by Retro with an edit summary using a source that didn't support the edit.[42][43][44], removes against consensus a personal account by a researcher sourced by the NY Times because RetroS1mone disagreed with it.[45][46] I can give many more diffs like this. I trust that readers will examine the diffs carefully to determine the actual accounts.

RetroS1mone gave one example of using "Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism." Once I asked a computer savvy editor, "How much would you expect to pay for web hosting a website similar in size to PatientsLikeMe?"[47](not a patient activism site). Social networking and patient activism from one simple question? A bit of exaggeration I believe.

RetroS1mone believes the IP harassing them may be one of a group of editors that RetroS1mone has named (the IP should be check usered for sockpuppets and permanently blocked). So my name isn't further implicated, I give permission to check that I don't use sockpuppets.

On July 7th Retro linked Medically unexplained symptoms (MUPS) for symptoms in the lead of Chronic fatigue syndrome[48]. The MUPS article is mainly undeveloped. After researching I found Medically unexplained symptoms is sometimes just that medically unexplained. But in physiological literature some authors use MUPS to refer to somatization. [49] There appears to be no official DSM, ICD or MESH approval of the term, so its use to describe symptomatology is controversial. I started looking at other articles to see how it is used and found Retro had added it to Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Syndrome, Chest pain and other articles. Other editors also noted and discussed how the term was being spread throughout multiple articles.[50] When I found MUPS was piped as easter egg links I reverted them explaining with an edit summary.[51][52] After RetroS1mone corrected it I didn't revert. In the Malingering article I found the sources did not support and actually refuted the MUPS material. I removed it leaving a detailed reason with citations on Talk:Malingering#most commonly feigned. RetroS1mone reverted my edit and the material is under discussion. Culture-bound syndrome has been on my watch list for over a year. When I saw some of the illnesses added they appeared to not fit the category. I found sources that refuted the identification criteria for some. I removed those with reasons and citations on the talk page[53]. It wasn't a complete revert. RetroS1mone reverted and left citations which I am still reading. Two of the citations do not appear to support the material.[54] [55] As I told RetroS1mone I have an interest in these subjects, some of our editing overlaps and some are completely separate.[56] When RetroS1mone complained on my talk page no time frame was used and no diffs were used to specify articles[57]. Since we both edit articles in common I believed RetroS1mone was talking about those also.

"This" and "it" are explained here and here. Ward20 (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User changed signature over editor concerns. Law _{type! snype?} 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Supreme Deliciousness has previously requested a user name change to "Supreme Allah". Obviously, his request has been denied due to the offensive nature of the proposed name, in spite of his begging for the change. Please see here:

• Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2009/July#Supreme Deliciousness → Supreme Allah
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVula#Excuse_me_but

Other users have expressed disapproval of User Supreme Deliciousness's proposed name change. Please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#supreme_Allah.3F

However, unfortunately, Supreme Deliciousness has snuck around the Admins' decisions and is now deceptively making his signature appear as "Supreme Allah" using: "User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Allah". Please the following examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Survey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druze

This is a very offensive turn of events on this matter and is grounds for serious Admin action against this user.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Users, including myself, have already taken offense to this insult to God, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike. User SD had been pre-alerted of the hugely offensive nature of this matter. The fact that SD has snck around the Admins' decision is a violation already committed, in addition to the offense itself. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not too late, your personal pissing match with SD will have to resume at another place and time. Editors expressed concern, he responded to the satisfaction of those editors, end of story. nableezy - 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, Supreme Allah was also a character from the TV series Oz, so possibly Arab Cowboy's dudgeon is a touch too highly placed. Crafty (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone gets it, Supreme Allah was one of my favorite characters, after Poet and Kareem Said. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to reopen this - AC, SD changed his signature. Please discuss the religious and Oz-related aspects of the former signature on your respective talk pages. There is nothing else to be done here. Law _{type! snype?} 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law, there's nothing else to discuss. SD only changed his signature after the AN/I had been brought up. He had ignored previous Admins' decisions on the name change request as well as other users' concerns on his Talk page. Mission now accomplished. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Supreme Allah" a redundancy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I've yelled at SD on his talkpage for this incident. He's seems to be a good editor, but clearly this wasn't one of his brighter moments. Crafty (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the supposed genesis of the username, SD is wise enough to know that offense that would be taken by such a username. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee this would not have happened or have been as heated were his signature "Supreme Jesus." Sad commentary on political correctness. Pzrmd (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless his real name was actually Spanish, and was Jésus Suprémo, yes, I would report "Supreme Jesus" to WP:UAA in a flash. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, Allah is not a given name in any Arabic culture I've heard of, whilst Jesus is a given name in many Romance language-speaking cultures. The rough Anglo-Saxon match to this username would be Supreme God, which I do think would raise some hackles in sundry ways. This is not "political correctness," words have meanings and one shouldn't be too startled when folks who like editing encyclopedia text tend to get stirred up by them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change my signature to "Supreme Muhammad" then. Muhammad is a common given name. Pzrmd (talk)

Are you unable to participate in Wikipedia without being disruptive? It seems like every time I turn around you're doing something disruptive, or threatening to. I would have thought the recent ANI discussion about you might have convinced you this isn't a wise path to follow. You'd probably enjoy your time here a lot more if you didn't engage in this type of behaviour; certainly everybody else probably would. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a civil debate. Pzrmd (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might do likewise and change my signature to "Supreme Redneck". Although I might become a lightning rod for complaints that I'm promoting Double Wide Supremacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just waiting for someone to say Jesus was a given name so that I could say "Supreme Muhammad." Pzrmd (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, "Allah" essentially means "The God", as in "The one and only God". It's not the "real name" of God, anymore than God is the real name of God in English. Only God knows what His own name is. But it's used as His real name, hence the meaning is the same as if it were His real name. Meanwhile, "Supreme Allah" essentially means "Supreme Supreme Being". Think about that the next time you're using your Automatic Teller Machine Machine and entering your Personal ID Number Number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pzrmd, I can guarantee you that I would have denied the CHU request if it had been "Supreme Jesus." Thanks for the faith, buddy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the signature. Pzrmd (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, AFG wouldn't even apply here. Pzrmd (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The excessive outrage over this reminds me of a particular Monty Python song. I forget the exact title. It might have been, "Never Be Rude to a Cowboy". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in all seriousness - it's best to use ID's and signatures that won't likely get anybody upset. Use some common sense, ya know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcjakeqcool was first brought to the community's attention through a thread in WP:VG where someone raised a concern about the number of articles he was creating. We then proceeded to deal with some of these articles, turning them to redirects of deleting them. Taking a look at the user's talk page quite well demonstrates the amount of controversy they has caused.

The user has been warned, but has vowed to continue, stating about "my project" and warning editors that he will challenge deletions (despite the fact that there has been few, if any, opposition to any deletion). User adoption was also suggested, but this idea was also refuted (or should I say "DENIED") by the user, stating that they would instead continue editing by their own accord.

Basically, this user has been a pain in the neck. They refuse to stop their editing, despite it breaching key policies, and have repeatedly stated what rights they have granted us editors. A block seems harsh, as the editor still seems to be acting in good faith, but as they evidently don't want to accept the rules, it may be the only way to get them to listen. What view do the community and administrators have on this situation, and what do they suggest we do to help this editor recognise the rules?

Apologies if this isn't the correct theatre for a discussion that doesn't immediately require an administrator's action. If so, please move this to the correct place and notify me on my talk page. Cheers. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at what you've written here (I haven't viewed any of the links or background info), it might be more appropriate to seek out some dispute resolution, especially if you feel he is acting in good faith. If he's not open to this, and his editing continues to be disruptive, then administrative action could probably be considered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Mcjake of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bottom line is that is appears this user does not care what advice, suggestions, helpful hints, or outright warnings they receive. They will continue to do what they want. For more than a month they've been creating articles with one or two sentences. These articles have repeatedly been redirected or deleted. Yet the user continues to create more articles in the same vein. Several times, suggestions on how to create good articles has been posted to their talk page, yet there is no change. As noted above, the user has refused possible adoption so that they can be a better contributor to Wikipedia. Something needs to be done so that people aren't wasting their time with the articles they continue to create and expect others to cleanup, add content to, or otherwise deal with. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McJakeQCool has been active since late 2008. He seems unable to comprehend advice given and equally unable to string together a sensical sentence. His article creations are copy-pastes, a sentence or two stating that it's a game for X system which at the bottom features the actual text displayed by stub templates and categories entered while editing normally (see this from a couple of days ago for example). Virtually all of them are on games which any editor would struggle to locate reliable sourcing on (a good reason for them not being here in the first place). Dispute resolution or anything involving.. y'know, communication, is going to be as effective as fighting a fire with petrol, since inability to communicate and respond to communication is the issue. I don't think there is any malice or intention to disrupt anything, but the result is the same. If the result of months of being here has not even instilled the knowledge of how to add categories, discern a reliable source or even write a proper stub then I fail to see who is gaining what from this. Please take another look at this, the problem isn't going to suddenly correct itself. Someoneanother 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My present statement is that I try my uttermost best to contibute postively to wikipedia, however I do comprehend all advice given to myself, I agree to colabarate with fellow wikipedians if nesersery as I already have with user Otumbu. mcjakeqcool 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

You were offered adoption by one of the video game project's friendliest and most helpful members, despite him not having much time, and you turned it down. Just over a week ago you received a friendly note pointing you to Wikipedia:Starting an article. That guide contains pointers such as "Things to avoid - A single sentence or only a website link". Today you created this, which is now listed as an AFD in a note at the bottom of your talk page after a string of deletion notices and requests for you to edit more contructively. You aren't getting it, at all, repeated assurances that you are will not allow you to carry on like this forever and a day. I really really don't want to focus on you (or any other editor), make you feel bad or anything like that, but you're just creating messes for others to clean up and are point-blank refusing to do anything about it. Someoneanother 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to mention the possibility of an WP:RFC/U, but if admin action is not necessary at this point with other venues having been tried to salvage something useful from this user, (I have mentioned the idea of adoption or mentorship, but both were thrown back in the offerers' faces.) then I think we may have to do up one. MuZemike 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing disruption has already been observed and commented on by multiple contributors, yet there has been no sanctions brought or change in behaviour. Rather than tie up what is a simple case of obliviousness or ignorance in red tape there needs to be some kind of boundary. Either that or we forget the whole thing, nominate further abortive 'stubs' for speedy and revert unhelpful article additions on sight, there is no more point in trying to reason with McJakeQCool than having a slanging match with a bookcase. Someoneanother 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe admin action is necessary. The user has received friendly advice on creating and developing articles ([58] [59]), been offered to be adopted ([60]), and has received numerous pending deletion notices ([61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] this from just this month) on articles the user has created. The user's response is to deny adoption ([68]), states they will carry on and will challenge deletions on the article's talk page ([69]), incorrectly instructs Wikipedians on how to "wikify" an article ([70]), created articles with the edit summary of "DO NOT DELETE OR MERGE ARTICLE AS IT HAS BEEN WIKIFIED", and makes statements that appears they believe they are doing things correctly ([71]). All the while, the user continues to create new articles in the same unconstructive manner.

This is disruptive editing practices, in my opinion, and something should be done about it. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out I did not refuse to collaborate with Guyinblack25, I simply refused to have him adopt my account, my ambition is to continue on with my project, until it is done, then I will think of another way to contribute to wikipeida, altough I accept my project is controversial, it is a landmark event not only for myself, but for wikipedia as a whole. mcjakeqcool 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarification of the unenlightened, what is your project? And whilst you say it is a "landmark event" for Wikipedia, does it follow policy? Because if not, it has no place on Wikipedia. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [72]. And this is not the first time User:Martintg has done this: [73]. After I tried to quietly point out WP:OUTING to this user, he only continued: [74]. Contrary to what Martintg says, my ethnicity or nationality are not public info; I have never commented on the subject. I want these outing attempts to stop. Offliner (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING prohibits "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". Such personal information does not, in my opinion, include nationality. Nationality is shared by millions; it is not private in nature and does not place anybody at risk. However, bickering of this sort may lead to WP:DIGWUREN sanctions for all involved.  Sandstein  18:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't care about your wikilawyering. Whether or not this is covered by WP:OUTING is irrelevant. I want this to stop, and my privacy respected. How long will this be allowed to go on? And I can assure you that I have good reasons for asking this. If necessary, I can explain to an admin per email. Offliner (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Martintg for WP:OUTING, since the unwanted disclosure of any personal information is not allowed here. Moreover, the edits as to nationality are disruptive: Only sources have sway, not assertions as to the background of an editor. Offliner, see WP:Oversight if you think there is a need for the edits to be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no technical 'OUTing' attempt in the provided diffs but 'personal attacks' resorting to nationality/ethnicity.----Caspian blue 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an indefinate block is completely OTT in this case.Theresa Knott | token threats 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll unblock and let the editor carry on outside policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, under WP:DIGWUREN you can impose practically any sanction you deem appropriate - but do it for the nationalistic battleground behavior, please, not for this non-outing. Both Martintg and Offliner have repeatedly been reported (by each other and allies) to WP:AE for this kind of stuff.  Sandstein  19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of any assistance, "nationality or race" is usually considered personal information in situations where a European country has legislation relating to same, because it may form part of a set of data that allows a third party to identify an individual. This may not be the same in the US. However, a person may wish to keep their nationality/ethnicity a private matter if for example they have sought asylum and fear persecution.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block was good as per battling along nationalistic lines, but I concur it was not outing, as per policy. After all, the editor merely needs to accidentally not login and post under an IP to divulge their country (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by having made the block, the edits were made to drive away and undermine the editor and had nothing to do with sourcing. Call it outing, personal attacks, disruption, whatever. My action had aught to do with anything Offliner may have done that is likewise untowards. However, without consensus, there is no pith to taking an admin action and I was happy to undo it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as someone (anyone) re-instates any length of block for the WP:NPA/WP:DIGWUREN actions, they can re-mark this one resolved, as Gwen Gale has somehow been convinced to remove it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I convinced her, and stand by my arguments. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant section in the AC ruling "2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Emphasis mine.Theresa Knott | token threats 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be a gentle warning from the user. Sure, it's not on the user's talkpage, but it's a responded-to warning nonetheless, so it's acknowledged. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, I think you're wikilawyering and with this one-second block, being disruptive. Outing and personal attacks aren't allowed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would i wikilawyer? I have stated all along that it wasn't that I approved of his behavior only that I disapproved of a block without warning, and an indefinite block at that so that he has to plead to get it lifted. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting another persons personal information is, in my opinion, far more than enough justification for an immediate community ban. We don't need to post warnings for every offense made by an editor. This behavior should be an offense that will lead to an immediate ban, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I disagree that that a link to a policy that nobody here agrees is even applicable can constitute a warning, gentle or not. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for input from the editor and would have swiftly unblocked had the editor acknowledged the behaviour and said it wouldn't happen again. Instead of asking me to explain what I had done, you mocked the block straight off and asked me to lift it, which I think was unhelpful. Now, we have someone asking for a community ban on Martintg. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I totally disagree with this approach. You don't block first, you warn first. Mythdon is responsible for his own sillyness not me. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLOCK: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking. Yes, warnings are more often than not called for but outing is a very harmful kind of personal attack. As I said, you should have asked me what I had in mind first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can people go to jail for this kind of stuff? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa and Gwen, cut out the bickering - it's taking up Wiki resources. Mythdon, yer on thin ice around here anyway; calling for heads (and jail?! wtf) is NOT a good idea for you. The rest of you, just let this go. Tan | 39 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Two comments. 1. Why anyone believes that Offliner is a Russian national? Actually, he first edited as User:80.247.246.99 who came from Finland (see here). 2. Unfortunately, that was Offliner who demanded other users to disclose personal information [75]. Biophys (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The original issue was the insertion of Russian nationalist POV into the lead of Kuril Islands dispute to the exclusion of all other POVs, unbalancing the lead. For me the issue here is related to Wikipedia:PLAGUE. Offliner's nationality is common knowledge within EE, even his compatriot User:HistoricWarrior007 mentioned his nationality on Talk:2008 South Ossetia war: "There is very little Russian perspective here. Certainly FeelSunny, Ingy and Offliner try, but three people, all of whom are much more liberal then most Russians, cannot bring in the Russian perspective. I started editing this article because I wanted to help out. I recall Offliner admitting his nationality a year or so ago, so I don't see where this is an issue of WP:OUTING It appears to be more of an attempt by a nationalist editor coming here to this board and game WP:OUTING in a novel way in order to eliminate his perceived content opponent. --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to administrators: Martintg was placed on formal WP:DIGWUREN warning here: [76] - on June 22, when several of us (including myself) were placed on formal notice regarding the WP:DIGWUREN remedy's essential principles, and while the 1RR restrictions given out together with the warning were then vacated for everyone involved on July 6, the formal request/warning to abide by WP:DIGWUREN was not. I believe Martintg has clearly violated it in this instance. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning for Martintg. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. With Gwen Gale's warning, I'm confident that Martintg will stop doing this. There were some comments in this thread were about me, but they seemed mostly to miss the point completely, so I think I can safely ignore them. To others reading this as well, such as Biophys, etc.: please don't post personal information about me that I have not made public myself. (And whether or not the information is correct is irrelevant.) Offliner (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the manner in which I attempted to air the issue of Offliner's nationalistic editing of Kuril Islands dispute on the article talkpage after Offliner proceeded to strip all non-Russian viewpoints from the article lead was somewhat brusque and could be construed as a borderline personal attack. However the view that mentioning an editor's national alliegence cannot be construed as "outing" appears to be unanimously held by all other admins who commented on this case here and on the various talk pages.

According to policy, making unsubstantiated allegations of egregious misconduct, and outing is particularly grevious, is also a form of personal attack designed to undermine the other editor's reputation. Offliner has a track record of filing vexations complaints on various boards and admin userpages, and has been warned about this in the past. Offliner is a veteran of WP:AE yet oddly enough he did not report User:HistoricWarrior007 when he mentioned Oflliner's national alliegence some three weeks earlier on the talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war where he is heavily involved in. To me this is indicative of the combative nature of the complainant.

Offliner needs to be formally warned that making unsubstantiated claims of grievous misconduct is also a form of personal attack and harassment if there is to be some balance here. When this ANI report is closed I request that it be explicitly noted for the record that no "outing" had taken place. --Martintg (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The 2008 South Ossetia war talk page is mess, and I do not read every comment by HistoricWarrior007 there. In addition, he did not claim that I was Russian - he listed me as one of three editors "who are liberal than most Russians."
2. I'm not a wikilawyer, so I don't know for sure if nationality/ethnicity is covered by WP:OUTING (I'm not even 100% sure what the word "outing" means). But it certainly is covered by WP:Respect privacy: "The above list is inclusive, not exclusive. If there is any doubt, don't reveal it. If their details would be useful, ask the person themselves to add it." Maybe I should have mentioned that policy instead of WP:OUTING (or maybe I shouldn't have mentioned a policy at all, and instead let the admins decide what is most approriate), but does it really matter? Why are you wikilawyering here?
3. Instead of attacking me (again) here, couldn't you just promise not to do this again (because you have been asked not to) and move on? Offliner (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Rangeblock and other blocks in effect

OckhamTheFox is acting in concert with Bambifan101 to post articles here at Bambifan101's request through discussions they are having on the Russian Wikipedia. He started by recreating The Seventh Brother, an article created twice by Bambifan101 socks and CSDed as such. See[77][78] for the discussions. I suspected as much when the article was posted, and its basically been confirmed by the newest IP sock[79]. Thoughts, options, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some fun quotes from their discussion: "Collectian is probably away now, so I think you can post my new draft there whilst she's away. Tell her that you are new to English wikipedia and are doing this in good faith." and his bragging about his sockpuppeting "FYI, Collectian isn't editing much, and the user Cactusjump is back after a four-day wikibreak. I had used an account called "TheRescuers" to trick Cactusjump into thinking that I was a Rescuers fan" clearly showing that OckhamTheFox (supposedly an administrator there?) knew what he was doing. I'm inclined to think its bannable, but will leave to others to decide how to respond to this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's more than high time for a formal complaint to Bell South. I am sick and tired of this individual wasting valuable volunteer time. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked and tagged the account. As for a formal complaint, you're always welcome to take a look at WP:ABUSE. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Meta finally decided to act on this to some degree and has blocked some of his global accounts, including The Seventh Brother one he was using on the Russian Wikipedia[80] and they are starting to block others as well[81] (only took a year after I first made multiple requests </bitterness>). He's being a pain on the many language ones as well, creating vandal articles and copy/pasting English articles from here (his preferred versions) to there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that OckhamTheFox is an administrator at the Russian Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means that Bambifan101 and OckhamTheFox are unrelated? It's odd how an administrator could do something like that. -- Pinkgirl34 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are unrelated, but for whatever reason, OckhamTheFox agreed to help him here despite knowing full well that he was a multi-time banned sockpuppet. Scary to think that is the kind of admins the Russian wiki has...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Russian Wikipedia too. Sorry, are there any pages other than listed on this page, which would help to find any additional information in order to get a complete picture of the situation with The Seventh Brother and his/her relations to Ockham The Fox? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We only just learned about this, so I doubt we've got anything other than what's on this AN/I thread, Drbug. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I looked through the User:Bambifan101 and didn't understand exactly what initilally there was disruptive in his behavior. Have he put false information into the articles or just inaccurate in style?

As far as I understand, the informatia lot on that Ockham the Fox carried into Wikipedia didn't contain any false information? It looks to me like all the OTF's edits were good faith ones... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has put false information, reverted to very old versions after clean up and referencing was done, randomly removed comments from talk pages to the point of blanking them, and refactored others comments. It just depends on his mood. Sometimes he does decent edits for a short time, but he almost always reverts to the status quo. He has deliberately vandalized other articles, including blanking and copyvio violations, to get the attentions of those familiar with him, repeatedly merged and unmerged articles at his own whim, attacked and harassed other users, made both death and suicide threats as a joke, threatened to have his "daddy" "buy" Wikipedia and kick everyone off, etc. And sorry, but OTF's edits were far from good faith ones. Seventh Brother AKA Bambifan had already bragged about how he was sockpuppeting here, and OTF KNEW he was banned from editing here, so he turned around and performed specific edits that Bambifan101 wanted to do, including recreated a multi-time deleted article (figuring if OTF did it, it wouldn't be CSDed again) and taken from content Bambifan101 provided. The edits to The Fox and The Hound were to restore deleted content and a version Bambifan101 prefers from one of his many bad versions he's spammed around the other language Wikipedia's. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks a lot for the info. Ok, I see now that the movie fails WP:N and WP:NF. Hm, I probably guess how OTF could think: "no matter what is the primary source of the work, it should be included in Wikipedia if it is legal and adds a value to Wikipedia according to its rules", provided that it's him responsible for the information he brings in. In Russian Wikipedia it's not universally prohibited to bring an article of a banned user to Wikipedia. So he doublechecked the information and put it in. Ok, I won't continue this topic in this page. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some more detailed info, this LTA subpage should help. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he did mean well, may want to warn him that the sock is still trying to "work" him and get him to do things for him. Ilikepiepieisawesomeright is probably him, again, and 68.220.187.70 most certainly is (one of his known IP ranges). Likely decided OTF is an easy mark and will continue trying to trick him for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone else incredibly tempted to just rangeblock 74.230.0.0/16, with a block notice that anyone inconvenienced by it should just be pointed towards Bell South's abuse reporting email address? Black Kite 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I'm too busy getting "Gremlins from the Kremlin" out of my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block User:Ilikepiepieisawesomeright. Its the named sock he made yesterday while he had the IP active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, OckhamTheFox is continuing to perform edits for Bambifan101.[82] While he may be an admin on the Russian Wikipedia, he is continuing to violate this Wikipedia's rules about making proxy edits for a sockpuppet knowing full well what he is doing. His block was released because of his admin status, but he is still not helping anything by continuing to edit for Bambifan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will talk to him in Russian. I think he does not realize the difference in policies concerning banned users. Ruwiki user Kv75 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this back from the archive as OckhamTheFox is STILL continuing to attempt to edit for Bambifan101 after telling him to contact him via email on the Russian Wikipedia (making their conversations impossible to continue to track). He is now trying to create another Disney article for the sock, despite a unanimous rejection on the The Fox and the Hound talk page. Can we get a topic ban or something? Its bad enough dealing with this mess, but now we have another user who appears to be socking joining OckhamTheFox to encourage him to do it anyway and now wikihounding me and making edits to The Fox and the Hound just to be aggrieving. Would appreciate eyes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should he be just blocked temporarily for disruptive editing? -- 科学高爾夫迷 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? OckhamTheFox was blocked for proxy editing, but the block was undone because he is a Russian Wikipedia administrator (though personally, I don't see why that mattered). Marktreut has been blocked once for disruptive editing, and is now using socks to get around 3RR on various articles and not even doing a very good job of it. At minimum, I think all the socks should be indef blocked, Marktreut get a longer block, and a strong warning to cease his inappropriate behaviors (disruptiveness, edit warring, personal attacks, vandalizing to make a point, etc). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own admins sometimes get blocked for good reason. Why should being a Russian admin be an automatic get-out-of-block card? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't be. Proxying for Bambifan101 warrants an indefinite block, regardless of his status on other Wikipedias.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ockham's block was quite appropriate. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that this user has proxied for a banned user and inserted specious edits into articles, then the indefinite block should be restored. However, I am admittedly having trouble finding a pattern of specious diffs in Ockham's contributions. I have seen the since-deleted recreated The Seventh Brother article but precious little else ([83] from July 20). Can someone please list the diffs in question here? -- Samir 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't a lot more, but that's enough. This conversation shows that it was done with full knowledge that we was proxying for a banned user, and here is the log where OckhamTheFox deletes the talk page where his side of the conversation would be found. Unless and until OckhamTheFox explains that he knows that what he did was inexcusable and that he will never repeat it, the block should remain in effect.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Seventh Brother edits, he also has done and continues to try to do proxy edits to The Fox and the Hound. Before that, he never really edited here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Ockham has engaged in conversation with Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother on ru.wp and possibly by e-mail. But the disruption has amounted to a now deleted article (The Seventh Brother); Ockham had indicated that he thought he was acting in good faith at the time. The edits to The Fox and the Hound are being discussed on the talk page of that article, and DGG has provided a cogent argument in favour of detailing the characters in the article, which is what Ockham's edits amounted to. In my mind, there is no argument for an indefinite block of OckhamTheFox based on the evidence presented. -- Samir 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He made the edits for Bambifan first, directly copy/pasting it from Bambifan's current version of the article at Simple Wikipedia. He is now claiming to be editing on his own, which Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother had encouraged him to do during their RU discussions, and simply wants to restore the same bad content. And yes, DGG made an argument too, even though it goes against the article guidelines, however all others have agreed that the section does not belong. The issue, however, is not a content dispute, it is his continuing to try to edit for Bambifan regardless of whether one or two editors thing the edits themselves are "okay" (and his additions were not).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite" or even "long". In this case, "indefinite" would mean "until OckhamTheFox promises that he will never knowingly proxy for a banned user again". If he truly understands what he did wrong, that block could be cleared in 20 minutes.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the simple fact that an admin anywhere would think doing so was a good idea suggests to me that not having him here doesn't hurt Wikipedia. HalfShadow 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have re-instated the indef block, ensuring that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users is noted both in the block log and on the accounts page. Perhaps they do things differently on ru-WP, but on en-WP they were in knowing violation of the policies that pertain to editing here. I also note that they spent their time post unblock in attempting to convince various parties to allow the creation/editing of the article under dispute - they were not even interested in stepping back from the matter.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually more concerned that this is an administrator on the Russian Wikipedia. Any damage here can be undone fairly easily. I'm not fluent in Russian, but is anything being done there? Enigma^msg 09:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, apparently this guy's a furry. 'Furry' and 'smart' are not two words that mesh well. HalfShadow 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the indef block. I'd support the /16 on that range of bell south IP addresses if I could be sure that we would catch most of the IPs assigned to BF101. There is (should still be up) a set of smaller ranges to block him, but I'm not sure of the efficacy. LTE is kind of a black hole. ISPs tend not to care that someone is vandalising wikipedia and most of the 'abuse@random-isp.com' addresses are required for registrants but not terribly well attended. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've actually managed to get in touch with a Singaporean ISP concerning a user's unconstructive edits and they assured me actions were taken. Some ISPs are more responsive than others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I should have been more careful in phrasing that. Some of the LTE threads have produced good results--in general, smaller ISPs tend to be more helpful than large one, but those are the exception to the rule. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put into effect the rangeblock. Any admin is welcome to reverse it if the collateral damage is severe. Black Kite 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's on a new range on which 98.90.28.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A small portion of that range is blocked. Here. This will eventually fail, as the bellsouth range is MASSIVE (a /11) and bell south appears to assign IPs randomly within that range to users. But it might work for a bit. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hopefully this won't be necessary for long--it looks like this block took out a good-sized chunk of Charleston, South Carolina. Blueboy96 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to block read access to a range? If you really want this resolved, the thing to do is to make it so that anyone in that /16 cannot even read Wikipedia, with an error message complete with a mailto: note to complain to the BellSouth abuse address. Given the actual technical acumen of the average user, BellSouth will flooded with reports that Google doesn't work. Bambifan101 will be booted within eight hours. In the meanwhile, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 could use some attention: at least a block of Ableblood369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while the gears at SPI grind away.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked the account. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Also endorsed the SPI request for checkuser. Enigma^msg 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Talk:Left 4 Dead 2 are a couple of editors who seem to, either through refusing to read the links others keep giving them or flat-out making baseless claims of bias on the talk page, have a very big beef over the article's section detailing the boycott of the game. Although the section is as neutral as can be from what I have read, these users seem to think that "NPOV" means "My Point of View". Other highlights include:

• Interpreting WP:No original research to mean that we shouldn't comment on the boycott's existence because it's based on speculation ([84], [85])
• Interpreting WP:Reliable sources to include Steam ([86])
• Accusing others of pulling a Bogdanov ([87], [88])

Could I get some help instilling these users with some clue? I have the patience of a saint with most users, but this is just willful ignorance and lawyering, and I'm about ready to blow my top. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get angry Jeremy, we are acting in good faith. You refuse to explain the rules you enact, and obviously have some sort of personal stake in this discussion. I, for one, am not angry. I am simply trying to get a biased section either reworded or removed entirely. Keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia, and haven't had the time to study every rule in it's entirety. However, my understanding of the NPOV rule says that if users feel a section is biased, then the use of a NPOV dispute tag is warranted. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, it's too much work for you to click a blue link and read a page? ...Oh, wait...

The only personal stake I have in this discussion is that I'm anti-idiotarian. If you really want me to push the talk page's size to the point a dial-up user will just give up, then you'd just be better off reading the pages I keep pointing out, rather than glossing over the bluelinked text. Hell, I linked some of them above, as well. In any case, I have been explaining the rules to you, and you two keep dismissing them ([89], [90]). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suspect the admin to be the one throwing insults around... seems silly if you ask me. I have read the articles you linked me to, many times in fact. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, normally I don't get frustrated to the point where I act like Rambo, but this lawyering and ignorance has rightly pissed me off. Anything I could say in re the article-reading would be outside AN/I's remit as an editorial dispute, but rest assured I doubt you've done so. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, it seems you have taken my postings as a personal attack on your integrity. I never intended to offend you, or anyone for that matter, I just want the article to either be rewritten to reflect a neutral point of view, or be removed entirely. However, reguardless of how this plays out, I don't think anyone would argue at this point that there is not a dispute over this article's neutrality, which is why I feel the NPOV tag should remain. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to branch into content, not conduct (what AN/I deals with). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, you need to rein in your impatience. This is a content dispute, and all you have demonstrated conclusively is that you don't like the opposing point of view. Meanwhile you use words like "anti-idiotarian" that would justify an incivility block all by themselves. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy are reapeatedly removing the not a ballot template on the AFD discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience[91] [92] [93] [94].

The template was placed on the page after User:Verbal and others posted messages on the AFD page[95] and on WP:FTN implying that the AFD was invalid without addressing the policy issues at hand. Since then there have been repeated baseless accusations from User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy on both the AFD page and on WP:FTN that I am acting in bad faith and that the article be kept, despite the fact that neither of them have demonstrated that sources sufficient to meet WP:N are available (I have repeatedly stated that if such sources are added to the article I will withraw the nomination).

I ask that the template be restored, that keep arguments in the AFD that do not address polivcy be disregarded (somewhat of a given, obviously) and that User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy be asked to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Artw (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit summary is of a particular worry.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO the template isn't terrible important either way. If this isn't something too important to you I would just be "the bigger man" and let it go. Also, this isn't terribly incivil, though it shows a lack of understanding of POINT. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artw (talk · contribs): we understand that you do not get along with Verbal (talk · contribs). Might we hold off on the AN/I reports for just a few days anyway? Maybe try some good old-fashioned talking it over without the overblown rhetoric and antics? Perhaps even avoid each other by contributing separately to our millions of articles?

I am honestly not sure why the template matters for that debate one way or the other. Usually I have seen it used for debates that get mentioned at 4chan or wherever or otherwise seem subject to canvassing and votestacking. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no canvassing or bad faith, etc. This is the second such report from Artw in only a few days. I agree that DGs edit summary is strong, but that is an issue Artw should take up with him using WP:DR. ANI is not a first recourse, and coming here for something so trivial is a waste of time and will only encourage drama. If Artw thinks the tag was so important, he could simply have justified it on the AfD talk page. So far the AfD looks like a merge/no-consensus, and now it's been brought to ANI like this I think the tag is appropriate - but not for the reasons outlined by Artw, who for some reason keeps bringing me here. I have not been uncivil in any way in my dealings with Artw. I did ask Artw to withdraw his nomination so the merge could go ahead, but he didn't respond. Following 2/0, if Artw were to avoid articles I am already actively editing then that would be ok with me, and likewise (although I don't think this has ever occurred). I don't know why Artw has such a problem with me, he seems to think I use FTN inappropriately, although I use it in the way it is usually used and within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. I've also tried to be conciliatory on his talk page, and when I had an issue with his posting ANI notices to multiple talk pages I took it to him and asked him to remove them rather than complain to ANI. As far as I'm aware the only talk page messages I've had from Artw are ANI notices! Sorry for the long reply, summary: I don't think this complaint is justified. DG has been short in some of his replies, but he has been baited by some users (not Artw that I'm aware) and I understand his reaction, although I feel it can counter-productive. However, DGs behaviour seems to be well within wikipedia norms! As always, improving advice and constructive criticism accepted on my talk page. Best, Verbal chat 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, the title is a bit long and loaded. Could it be shortened? Just removing the names would go a long way to shortening and neutralising it. I'd do it, but as it's my "name" I'll bow out. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of whether WP:FTN is being used as a getaround for WP:CANVASSing is entirely seperate.

As for my title and description of the situation of the situation I stand by them - though I will conceede that it's mainly User:DreamGuy making accusations of bad faith. Artw (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section header. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed again. Using Wikicode in a title busts the goto arrow. HalfShadow 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the latest incident of "civil POV pushing": people trying to game the system by blatantly violating core policies and then claiming it's uncivil for other editors to tell them they're breaking those policies. I also find it odd that User:Artw waited to run off to ANI to complain about my removing the ballot template until after I was no longer removing it. It's like he knew the situation was going to blow over and he'd lose his chance to complain and escalate the conflict instead of letting it resolve. And, frankly, the idea that he could suddenly nominate the article about that book for deletion immediately after he lost a bitter argument to have it removed as a source on the Ian Stevenson article (first by claims it wasn't reliable, then by claims that it didn't say what it obviously said) and not expect to have people raise their eyebrows is just absurd. These kind of actions should not be encouraged, as it just teaches other editors how to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my last AN thread regarding this user, she continues to tag in a disruptive way, her latest move is tagging a redirect as an orphan. I notice her talk page has been filling up with other users who have a problem with her disruptive tagging now. Any attempts to talk to her are met with page blanking (while its allowed, its not constructive in trying to work out what is going on!). Someone with authority needs to have a word in her ear to ask her to think before tagging. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for clarification left on user's talk page. Tan | 39 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would somebody even tag a redirect as an orphan? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make you lay in bed awake nights pondering just that question! ThuranX (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that somebody is simply mindlessly working off a list produced by a bot, trying to reduce the workload of another bot. [96] And this list contains the page because it is (incorrectly) in mainspace, has no incoming links, and is currently under RfD, causing the template to break the redirect. [97] Hans Adler 08:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The response was productive as always. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it seems clear that Postcard Cathy is operating a bot. Of course theoretically she could just be a human acting like one, but per WP:DUCK we needn't check this. Since it's causing problems, especially through lack of transparency exacerbated by her communication style, she should be made to run it through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and blocked if she continues to use it without that formality. (If she really isn't a bot, I suppose she can just get some pseudo-code approved and follow that.) She also needs to announce the fact on her user page or create an alternate account for the bot runs. Hans Adler 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I find it odd that Postcard Cathy mentioned two lists as the ones she might be working from, rather than specifically saying which one she is using. Neither of these lists currently contains the page in question. [98][99] However, that might be because the first of these lists has not been updated yet since the silly tag was removed. Hans Adler 09:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ricky81682 says that the response wasn't productive. The question wasn't particularly productive, either. Why repeatedly ask something that you know the answer to? You've seen Postcard Cathy's explanation. It was discussed the last time that this came up. We've been over this ground. We all know what the explanation for these edits is. Postcard Cathy said that xe is tired of repeating it again and again, and is clearly now just ignoring repeated requests for the same answer. The problem here is in part that people are asking for the same information again and again, and it's even the same people doing the asking. That's not Postcard Cathy's fault. If anything, it's a comprehension or memory problem with the people doing the asking.

  Hans Adler, you weren't involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#User:Postcard Cathy. I strongly suggesting reading it in order to catch up, here. Yes, you're not the only one to have thought that Postcard Cathy is a 'bot. What xe really is is a person obviously very tired of being asked why xe thought that an article was an orphan over and over, across a span of years.

  At this point, I'm halfway tempted to step on Postcard Cathy's toes by putting a FAQ or an editnotice at User talk:Postcard Cathy giving the answer to this oft-asked question. The upset that it might cause xem will be offset by the reduction in the number of new people coming along asking the same question that's been asked for years (and that's even answered at Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 1: Finding an orphaned article) and then getting huffy, sometimes with threats of administrator tools, when Postcard Cathy mutely declines to tread the same old ground yet again. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the question was totally productive, not sure why you are suggesting this. We don't know the answer why she is tagging a redirect as an orphan, unless you can read minds? At least if a bot tags a page I think it can work out if a page is a redirect or not. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you do know. It's not hard to figure out even from the raw diff and first principles, and Hans Adler even explained that the page was not actually a redirect at the time of tagging above. I repeat my point: You already know the answers to these questions, so it isn't productive to keep asking them. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we don't know the answer to the question, and you are just making presumptions. This is not the same question over and over, this was blatantly tagging a "non article" as an orphan, totally inappropriate, and shows signs of the editor not actually paying any attention to what she is doing. As we know, this isn't the first instance of said editor paying no attention, which ultimately ended up in a block on that occasion. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we do know. We are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves, for starters. Stop pretending that we are too thick to work this out. We are not. We all here know how MediaWiki works. We all here have been here a while. We all know from simple experience of seeing them what a redirect actually looks like and what is not a redirect. You know perfectly well that Postcard Cathy did not "tag a redirect as an orphan", because as an experienced editor you can recognize when a page is not actually a redirect. It is unproductive to keep asking why a page that quite obviously would satisfy JaGa's tool's criteria for being an orphan article was tagged as an orphan by an editor whom you already know is one of the WikiProject Orphanage volunteers who tag pages listed by that tool as orphans.

          I repeat for the third time: You already know the answers to these questions, so it isn't productive to keep asking them. It's also not productive to act as if we are incapable of some basic thinking and working out what someone else is doing, and even to reject that thinking when Hans Adler does it. Putting onesself in the other editor's shoes and thinking is very much what should be going on here. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read the last thread when it happened, but decided I don't have to take part each time this user comes up at ANI. (I believe there was one earlier ANI report, and at the time I was one of those leaving a message on her talk page.) I have no idea what, in your opinion, is the answer that Postcard Cathy has once given and she is too tired to repeat. I am not even sure that I know what the question is. In my opinion this is about a request: A request to stop acting like a bot. A non-bot who acts like a bot is a problem, in part because a non-bot is forgiven a certain amount of edit-warring, while AFAIK bots don't rerevert even in cases of blatant vandalism. And IIRC Postcard Cathy has in the past reverted back to her version in situations where she could give no reason other than that it was on the list she was using and everything else wasn't her business and would people please ask someone else who is more knowledgeable.

    In the area she is working in she gets into contact with a large number of inexperienced users. The face of Wikipedia that she is presenting to them is that of a huge kafkaesque bureaucracy in which little minions are just following orders, with no interest in the big picture, no interest in exercising discretion, and no interest in being helpful to fellow editors. I am not sure that tagging pages as orphans is sufficiently important to do it quickly for such a price. Why not let someone else do it, more slowly, and with a minimum amount of care?

    And to come back to your Treat xem like a 'bot in this case from the earlier ANI thread: That's exactly what I am saying. Formal bot approval. And I am sure the BAG will make sure there is a shutdown function for cases of malfunctioning and that the bot makes sure not to get into an edit war with a user or another bot. Independently of that, bot operators don't get an unlimited licence to be grumpy just because their bot does so much work and they get so many low-quality complaints. Hans Adler 15:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • After blanking my request for an explanation, I have left one more. If this one does not work, I am going to block for unexplained disruptive editing. Communication, especially in the face of concern or request, is essential to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. I agree with some of what Uncle G says above - that a permanent "FAQ" explanation on her talk page would work. The current "DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT:" header on her page is rude, at best - and you can't expect editors to know about archived ANI threads. The problem isn't so much the tagging - the problem is the uncommunicative and dismissive manner in which it is done. Tan | 39 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Communication […] is essential to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. — So, too, however, is putting onesself in the other editor's shoes. Try putting yourself in Postcard Cathy's shoes. You're one of the volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage. Everything that you do is explained at the project's page and at Wikipedia:Orphan (the page that is even linked-to by the tag that you are applying). Yet people keep asking you, month after month, year after year, how you determined that an article was an orphan and why you tag articles as orphans. It's even the same people time after time in some cases. Occasionally those people come to an administrator's noticeboard, and occasionally another administrator who hasn't seen that the question has been asked and answered (and is even documented by the Wikiproject) weighs in with threats of administrator tools.

        But revoking editing privileges isn't really "communication", either. We shouldn't be hitting editors with sticks for doing what we normally recommend as the right thing to do: disengaging from unproductive discussions that would otherwise get highly confrontational. There is no logic underpinning the idea that if someone avoids getting into heated disputes with other editors, by refusing to engage after the Nth repetition of a request, that is somehow a bad thing.

        We're not policemen, and we're not slave drivers. And ordinary editors are human beings. Our best course of action is very often to help, to assist. Blocking doesn't help anything here. But trying to promote some understanding of what is explained at Wikipedia:Orphan and of what Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage volunteers do, on the parts of the people who keep pestering one of those volunteers over and over, might. Sometimes the right administrator tool to use isn't an administrator tool. As I said, an edit notice or a FAQ at User talk:Postcard Cathy is quite tempting. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no idea what, in your opinion, is the answer that Postcard Cathy has once given and she is too tired to repeat. — Actually, you have. You did, after all link to one of the edits saying it, and saying even that xe had repeated it again and again. You've also paraphrased it yourself: "it was on the list she was using and everything else wasn't her business and would people please ask someone else who is more knowledgeable".

      And I know that you're saying "treat xem like a 'bot", and I'm not disagreeing, merely pointing out that xe isn't in fact a 'bot. Equally, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Postcard Cathy isn't a "'bot operator being grumpy". Xe is taking an (almost) entirely mute and non-confrontational approach to being asked the same questions repeatedly. Actual grumpiness would be akin to some of the talk page responses of the more infamous erstwhile 'bot operators, which Postcard Cathy's behaviour isn't really in the same class as.

      In the area she is working in she gets into contact with a large number of inexperienced users. The face of Wikipedia that she is presenting to them is that of a huge kafkaesque bureaucracy — which is why, as I've said, the most appealing option is to step in on Postcard Cathy's behalf with a FAQ or an editnotice, given that xe isn't very good (as can be seen from xyr talk page) at providing them xyrself. Rather than threaten with sticks, we could help.

      I see (after an edit conflict) that this idea has some traction. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits where my arguments are: User talk:Postcard Cathy/Editnotice now exists. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar with Editnotices, but I don't see how this is going to help - there's nothing on the talk page to alert anyone to the existence of this subpage (except UncleG's note, which doesn't link to it), so how will anyone come to read it? PamD (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Editnotice. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks. I had actually looked at that before, but not noticed the key fact that the edit notice only appears when you actually try to edit the article. Makes perfect sense now. Sorry about that. PamD (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the last paragraph seems to say it's quite OK to put stub templates anywhere in an article that Cathy chooses, whereas WP:Layout specifies them as last but for interlanguage links ... that's been an earlier battlefield, with my requests getting un-collegial response after being blanked a couple of times. PamD (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Postcard Cathy's edit notice, and as such it is not intended to reflect your view on the matter. The last paragraph summarizes what Postcard Cathy wrote here, here, and indeed here. The "OCPD editor" that xe is talking about is Mister.Manticore, whose interactions with Postcard Cathy can be found here for starters, and which you should read. Other editors that Postcard Cathy has had to deal with coming to xyr talk page include editors like this one (more more). Put yourself in Postcard Cathy's shoes. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a relief: I had thought I might be the "OCPD" editor she was talking about. And OK, I take your point that you've put (her own) words into her mouth here... I'm still just very unhappy about her attitude on placement of stub tags (still putting them at the top), as well as her failure to respond collegially to civil comments. PamD (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given some of xyr early interactions with other editors on xyr talk page, are you surprised? It's coloured xyr whole view of the community. You know that we aren't all like that. I know. And we don't treat others that way. But we have had (a) more talk page interactions, and (b) better talk page interactions. Unfortunately, Postcard Cathy is now at the stage where xe regards these various matters as asked and answered long since, and any new attempts at discussion as just more of the same that xe has encountered before. Also note, in case it is causing confusion, that Postcard Cathy appears to be of the school who archives user talk pages to history. I hope that we can back out of this corner that Postcard Cathy and others have driven in to, and I hope that the edit notice helps to ameliorate one of the problems that got us into this corner in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Her habit of removing all previous comments has of course meant that editors interacting with her for the first time have no knowledge of all the previous stuff, so have been raising points in the belief that they've not been raised with Cathy before. On most editors' talk pages one can get a flavour of previous discussions, without having to go to "History". The edit notice may help... but I still find it difficult to understand, or sympathise with, her approach to some issues. PamD (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While helpful, I don't think that will satisfy those complaining that she is adding orphan tags inappropriately or without thinking about it. Surely the reason for having a live human do the tagging, rather than the bot (as with say Sine bot) is so the human can make a judgement about the situation. Tagging a category page where the reason there is only one item in the category is because only one item exists is a futile exercise [100]. I would expect a bot to do that - they do have the good excuse that they are mindless. For a human, I would have thought that intellectual processes might suggest spending 45 seconds to verify that there is only one Black Lace album that has ever warranted an article (thank the goddess), and that the category is therefore redundant rather than orphan. If all you do is work through the list without ever exercising any sort of intellectual involvement would, I admit, bore me to death, and I'd be pestering for the creation of a bot to do the tagging.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheez! that last sentence was positively illiterate. What I was trying to say that I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to chug through a list and just tag, without looking at what they were tagging, because I would find it boring as hell. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your bafflement that anybody would want to spend their time this way, especially because my understanding is that a bot does exist for this task, and Postcard Cathy chooses to do it before the bot gets around to it. But a lot of us have our weird cleanup/maintenance niches (for me, it's mostly disambiguation pages) that we find rewarding even though others don't understand the appeal, so if this is what Postcard Cathy wants to spend time on, I'm not going to question it. However, I strongly agree with the sentiment others have expressed that if Postcard Cathy is choosing to work like a bot instead of a conscious editor, then he/she should be subject to the same standards that bots must meet in order to receive and maintain permission to operate. Propaniac (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I signed on today, I found that Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had moved Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the title "Masked Rider Decade". I had seen that there was discussion on the talk page, and as this article is in my area of interest, I moved it back and left a message on the talk page explaining why the title was chosen and then left a message to Drag-5 concerning my issues with his move. In the past half-hour he's moved it back three times, and every time I move it back to the original title. I've just left an edit at the redirect so that it now can't be moved again (I know, bad practice), but Drag-5 has ignored me and directly taunted me in his recent move summaries and his replies to me on his talk page. Even though I directly interfered with his ability to move the article again, I would like to see some action taken against Drag-5 to prevent further disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ryulong left a message on my page in an intimidating manner making orders using false authority. he made me feel intimidated and threatened. he failed to assume good faith and reverted edits more than 3 times and used practices that are against wikipedia policy. he is taking a power trip and is not considering that my edits are for the good of wikipedia and has treated me with disrespect at first. I do not caqre if i get banned but this will only result in people like this gettig their power trip and continuing to stagnate sikipedia and keep bad editing practices and bad communication and intimidation of other members. Drag-5 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this diff is proof that Drag-5 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopædia. jgpTC 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is repeatedly inserting a definitive religion into the article in violation of our policies on such things. Additionally, she has been warned that what she is doing is wrong, and could lead to her being blocked. I also pointed her toward the discussion at the BLP noticeboard, where we worked out the BLP issues, when she approached me at my talkpage. Something needs to be done, as she is now hinting at outing me. Unitanode 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question, Sam Fuld, was formerly stable. User:Unitanode has in the last 24 hours deleted (among other appropriate language) the statement that Fuld is Jewish three times. See [101]

I detailed the basis for that statement not only my edit summaries, but also discussed it at some length on the article's talk page [102] and the talk page of the complaining editor (Unitanode) [103]. In my last edit summary, I had entreated Unitanode to "Please stop edit warring; please leave as is (and has it has been, in stable form, for a long time) and discuss on talk page where I have discussed." (see [104]) His response was ingnore my entreaty, and to revert yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

As to the substance of the dispute, The deleted language was as follows: " Fuld, who is Jewish,^[1][2][3] is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.^[4]" In place of that, Unitanode insists on "Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.^[5]"

The support for the deleted three words consists of three citations (emphasis added below; below, the number rises to seven), as follows:

Fuld, who is Jewish,^[6][7][8] is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.^[9]

The complaining editor here would delete the words "who is Jewish" (see [105]), and instead indicate the religions of Fuld's parents, as follows:

Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.^[10]

One article of the above three citations, written by Jonathan Mayo, a senior staff writer for MLB.com (the official publication of major league baseball), who has been writing for MLB.com on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post), and who has been writing about Fuld since 2007, states: "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg .... ". ("Members of the Tribe", also known as "MOT" is slang for Jewish (Israelite or Member of the Tribe of Judah), as is reflected at [106] and [107]).

A second article says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13".

And a third citation clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.)."

I would note that Jews are a nation and ethnicity, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates that a Jew is a member "of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group .... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated". Jews therefore differ from many other religions, which are not ethnicities or nations.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, but inclusion must be justifiable by external references. Such is the case here. The article does not state what he believes in, just that he is a member of this ethnoreligious group, where ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly related. With three supporting citations, including one who is a senior writer for the official publication of the sport, and who has written on Fuld in both 2007 and 2009, I believe that the citations amply warrant the sentence as is.

WP:BLPCAT, which my colleague refers to, is limited to statements as to the subject's "religious beliefs and sexual orientation." Here, that is not the focus (we do not say "Fuld believes in Judaism ... for example, he could be a Jew for Jesus). We only say that he is part of the ethnoreligious nationality known as the Jewish people; what two of the authors above refer to as a "member of the tribe". I note, as well, that curiously while railing against the deletion of the heavily sourced reference to Fuld's religion, he insists on inserting references to Fuld's parents' religions -- which clearly don't meet the standard that my colleague (innappropriately, I would suggest) says apply. See [108]. I also note that the criteria for religion per se brings to mind the rhetorical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Apparently, by the criteria, not unless we can find a statement made by him to that effect; and, judging by my research, it is possible that none exists.

In addition, it should be noted that my collegae baseas his deletions on a guidance as to categories on wikipedia. But he was not deleting categories at all -- he was deleting text within the article. Categories, of course, raise different issues -- as the guidance says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". While for the aforementioned reasons the category should also remain, it should be noted that the entire premise for his removal of this information was based on an innapplicable guideline.

I also think it a shame that my fellow editor would not agree to leave the article in the form that it has been in stable fashion for an extended period of time, and instead insisted on edit warring despite my entreaties to leave it as is and discuss on the talk pages.

As to my question as to User:Betty Logan, she has been wikistalking me and warned as recently as [109] ("Don't worry about Betty Logan, I have given her a warning. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:08, 21 July 2009"). I noted that the complaining editor did not have any history on this article or other baseball articles, but since Betty has been warned for wikistalking me just this week and "piling on", out of curiosity I asked if they were one and the same.--Ethelh (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. User:Unitanode boldly removed various sourced facts on 25 July 09 (the dispute being about whether the sources support the facts, which in my estimate they do), has been reverted, and there should now be the discussion phase per WP:BRD. And User:Unitanode is edit-warring and ANIing, rather than discussing. Occuli (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unitadone is not edit warring, but trying to enforce BLP. Before Unitadone arrived on the scene I raised the BLP/synthesis issue on the Fuld talk page, and was rebuffed. There was contradictory information about his religion, and in view of that, and no direct statement from Fuld one way or the other, BLP prevents us from saying that he was of one faith or the other. I posted on the BLP noticeboard and Unitadone responded by changing the article to reflect the sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outing attempt is definitely an ANI matter, and some action is needed. As regards Fuld, unless he converted, he's not Jewish, since his mother is Catholic, and in Jewish tradition the religion of the mother is what matters. Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's really up to Fuld. Unless he says so, I don't think we can. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the Jewish tradition thing: it depends on what part of Judaism I understand. That's why we need a statement from Fuld. Wikipedia should not be an arbiter of "who is a Jew" controversies. If Fuld doesn't identify his religion, given the state of facts, we should simply not say so.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I brought the issue here because it felt like an "incident." I was attempting to clean up some BLP issues, when Ethelh began bald reverting me. Fixing BLP problems is an exception to WP:EDITWAR. Then she made the creepy outing-style post, which finally convinced me to bring it here, instead of WP:BLP/N. Perhaps this was a mistake, but it's what I thought was best. Unitanode 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, if you want to make this an administrator matter, here's what the administrator response will be: An administrator such as myself will come along, remove the disputed content from the article (in accordance with the BLP policy's strictures), and protect the article so that none of you can edit it. I suggest that you don't make this an administrator matter, and that you all instead voluntarily restrict yourselves to discussing this on the article talk page without the contested information in the article, rather than waiting for an administrator to force you to do so. Because that will be the outcome here if you make this an administrator matter. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh I'll make this my last post here, as I'm clearly not making myself understood. I came across this article only because of the BLP issues, which I fixed. Ethelh reverted to a BLP non-compliant version without comment. I don't have any particular interest in the subject of this article, except as it pertains to it being a BLP. My issues that need administrator attention are twofold: 1) Ethelh is reinserting BLP violations into the article; and 2) Her weird outing post was against policy as well. If these aren't big enough "incidents" to require administrator action to prevent her disruption (both on the BLP side, and the outing side), I guess that's fine. Unitanode 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right. I raised the issue on the BLP/N originally, a week or more ago, for the purpose of getting administrator (or BLP-sensitive) intervention. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I know how you came here (I put the {{see also}} at the head of this section.), and I've seen your patrolling of BLP/N long since. But there is more than just you involved here, and the administrator action that will be taken will nonetheless be the above. It's how such issues are addressed.

    As to the "wierd post": That was explained above. It wasn't outing. It was a badly-phrased "are you a sockpuppet?" request. (Even a simple internal link would have clarified it.) The name was the name of an English Wikipedia account. Of course, sockpuppetry was a bad assumption to leap to straight off the bat. But it wasn't, at least according to the explanation above, an attempt to seek or to demonstrate an external identity. So far it's one badly phrased question based upon poor assumptions, and a follow-up explanation of that question. It isn't disruption. Don't make an issue of it that will turn it into disruption. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Ethelh accuses every editor who contradicts her/him of being Betty Logan. It's just a ploy to make a good editor look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.161 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::I agree with Johnny B256. This attempting to name people's religion almost always seems to be about Jews, odd that. And Ethelh's version has, as the first few words in the section on this person's personal life, "Fuld, who is Jewish" -- is this typical I wonder? If I look at other articles on athletes will is see '"Joe Bloggs, who is Christian" as the typical intro to a Christian athlete's biography? Why in the world is this so important? The current version starts with a sentence saying his father is Catholic and mother Jewish, which I hope is also not typical of our biographies. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "father who is/mother who is" thing was simply an attempt to keep a version of the info that Ethelh liked in the article, while also keeping it BLP-compliant. I have no problem if it's removed, as it does feel a bit awkward, even though it's adequately sourced. The larger issues regard her outing and repeated BLP violations, though. Unitanode 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just EthelH. If you go back through the edit history you can see that I was instantly reverted by another editor the two times I removed the religion and the categories, even before it was sourced at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm extraordinarily confused by all this. While I will accept the explanation of her post asking me if I was "Betty Logan", Ethelh is repeatedly inserting BLP violations into the article, yet the only thing actionable is page protection? I guess I don't understand. It would seem that blocking the BLP violator is a better solution, but if you feel that only page protection is acceptable, I can live with that, I guess. As long as there aren't any BLP violations in the protected article, it shouldn't be a problem. Unitanode 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the editing privileges doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that some editors that think that there are sources to support the content and some editors think that the content is controversial and wholly unsupported (and possibly outright contradicted) by the actual sources cited. That's solved by talk page discussion. As I said, the administrator action taken will thus be the usual one: remove the content from the article, protect the article, and force the discussion to take place on the talk page, when it hasn't gone there voluntarily. Clearly, given the length of xyr posts on this noticeboard alone, at least one of the editors is willing to participate in such a discussion, and is holding xyr position in good faith. So stopping xem from editing, and thus from participating in such a discussion, is counterproductive. Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the BLP issue is, but here's an interview with Sam Fuld from a couple of years ago, on the Cubs MLB page, in which he talks about celebrating both Hannukah and Christmas, while not saying which of the two (if either) he adheres to: [110] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting comment mentions "a couple of Jewish friends". Would someone who is fully Jewish refer to "Jewish friends"? I think only someone who is not Jewish (or not fully Jewish) would use an expression like that. As of 2 years ago, at least, it seems like he considers himself "a bit of both". The citations that Ethel lists seem to belong to the category of "claiming as their own", but they might be jumping to conclusions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know, the particular policy issue can be found here. It's a relatively cut-and-dried violation, as his religion (whatever it is) has no bearing on his notability, nor has he made any claim regarding it. Unitanode 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for admin intervention here, except in the matter of a possible outing. The BLP issue is better handled on the relevant noticeboard. If it's still unresolved then the thread there should be continued.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We had resolved the issue at WP:BLP/N, when Ethelh came back and started reinserting the problematic BLP stuff, as well as asking me if I was Betty Logan. Those seemed like an "incidents" to me, so I brought it here, and linked this discussion at the BLP/N board. Anyways, if I was wrong to do so, I apologize. Unitanode 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Will, there have been no recent edits at Sam Fuld, but the issue does not appear to be resolved if I am interpreting correcting this post[111] on your talk page. I will note that at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The test -- Unitanode reverted textual language (not a category reference) that I had inserted. He has in the past, and continues to above, assert incorrectly that the category criteria (which states that if we say "Fuld says he believes in the Jewish religion," we need a source that has him stating as much. That's simply not the test for deletions of textual information, which is what Unitanode engaged in. It is sufficient to reflect that he is Jewish in the text of the article if one has reliable sources, which we have here.

Unitanode is certainly edit warring (he refused to leave the article as it was, and instead reverted, despite entreaties). And he is not trying to enforce BLP, as he is applying the patently BLP category standard to what is clearly a non-category edit.

To make Unitanode's application of the wrong test even more peculiar, as another feature of his reverting he continued to insert the religions of Fuld's parents (which, per Unitanode -- innapropriate -- test would not have warranted inclusion). Even though I kept deleting the references. And clearly the religion of his parents is less notable. This makes no sense, and is wholly inconsistent with Unitanode's explanations.

I've even added four new sources below. In one of them, in painstaking detailed fashion the author describes the process engaged in before Fuld was identified as Jewish. In short, Fuld's inclusion on the list of Jews in baseball required that Fuld either state that he was Jewish in an interview, or that he or his representative or very close family member indicate that Fuld had one or more Jewish parents, and that Fuld was not raised in a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not adhere to a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not have any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the publication.

2) Sources -- I agree with Occuli (above) that the sources support the facts. I discuss below why, and in addition add three more sources, one of which describes in detail how it was verified that Fuld was Jewish.

a) One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball (MLB.com), who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

b) The second source listed above is a blog; that is not reason, in and of itself, to disregard it. Per Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, blogs may be used as sources in Wikipedia articles, depending on the blog in question (specifically, the nature of its author and/or publication), and this author and the publication are just the sort countenanced by the guidance.

The author of that entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.[112]

The newspaper in which his column appears has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey.[113] The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question.

c) There are additional sources that indicate that Fuld is Jewish. For example, the book Day by Day in Jewish Sports History includes reference to Fuld Wechsler, Bob, Day by day in Jewish sports history, p. 175, Ktav Publishing House (2007), ISBN 0881259691, 9780881259698

d & e) In addition is the article in which Nate Bloom states: “Completing the roster of major league Hebrews … [is] outfielder Sam Fuld.”Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities Play Ball and Dance the Merengue”, InterFaithFamily.com. Bloom writes a weekly column on Jewish celebrities that appears in the Atlanta Jewish Times, the Cleveland Jewish News, the American Israelite of Cincinnati, the Detroit Jewish News, the New Jersey Jewish Standard, and the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California. A long explanation of the criteria that Fuld had to meet before he was identified as Jewish is set forth at Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities: Play Ball! Specifically, it states: “As in most recent years, this season about half the active major leaguers identified as Jewish by Jewish Sports Review, a bimonthly newsletter, have interfaith backgrounds. Jewish Sports Review is the premiere source on "who is Jewish" in baseball (and many other sports) on the high school, college, and pro level…virtually every good source on "who is Jewish" in baseball is built on the Review's hard work. So, I think it's important to credit them. The content is not available online, but you can order the Review at jewishsportsreview.com Before discussing the players, I thought readers might like to know the "inside scoop" on how the Review finds out a player is Jewish and what their definition of "Jewish" entails. Every once in a while, the Review adds a player because he is clearly identified as Jewish in a very good news source like an interview. More often, they decide to contact a player (or a player's representative or very close family member... If they are told (by the player or his rep) that the player has one or more Jewish parents--they then inquire if the player was raised in and/or currently adheres to a faith other than Judaism. If the player answers "yes" to either of those questions--that ends the Review's inquiries and they don't cover the player. On the other hand, if they are told the player was raised Jewish or "nothing"--the Review then asks if the player has any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the Review. If not, then they add him.” See also Bloom, Nate, “Celebrities,” The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, 4/4/08, accessed 7/27/09, “Completing the roster of 2008 major league Jews: ... Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld” (emphasis added)

f) In addition, Jewish Major Leaguers Inc., the organization that with permission from Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, has produced editions of cards of Jewish baseball players in association with the American Jewish Historical Society, and licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, lists Fuld as a Jewish baseball player.[114] Jewish Major Leaguers, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to "document American Jews in America's Game." Its work builds on the research of the Jewish Sports Review, Total Baseball, the American Jewish Historical Society, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame."Documenting America's Jews in America's Game"

Furthermore, the September 11, 2008, article entitled "September yields small fall crop of Jewish Major Leaguers," by Ron Kaplan, Features Editor, for New Jersey Jewish News, states: "As you’ve been reading in the weekly JML updates, there has been a steady minyan of Jews up in the Show throughout the 2008 season. But as of Sept. 1, teams have the option to increase their rosters ... allowing them to take a look at some of the up-and-comers.... Here’s a brief look at some players who spent at least part of 2008 with their teams’ AAA affiliates.... A few — such as ... Sam Fuld — have already enjoyed the proverbial “cup of coffee”" (emphasis added).[115]

3) Notability. As to the issue of notability of the Jew/baseball intersection, which I see is now being raised, this has long been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the notability of the intersection is demonstrated by the fact that there are seven articles devoted to it (in Fuld's case) and countless articles, books, a baseball card set of Jewish major leaguers endorsed by Cooperstown, Major League Baseball "Jewish ballplayers" day at Cooperstown, etc.. It's not a subjective test ("Do I think it notable"), but an objective one ("Do others write about it?"; "Is it treated as notable by major league baseball?"). And just as major league baseball treats the intersection as notable (see "Jewish players celebrated at Hall", MLB.com, and "Jewish baseball players have their day(s) at Cooperstown", USA Today), and the American Jewish Historical Society with permission from Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the support of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum joined in the production of a set of baseball cards of Jewish ballplayers"Tribute is in the cards for Jewish ballplayers: Set documents their contribution", The Boston Globe, and books have been written about the Jewish ballplayers "The big book of Jewish baseball" By Joachim Horvitz, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948,” By Burton Alan Boxerman, Benita W. Boxerman, Martin Abramowitz and Ellis Island to Ebbets Field By Peter Levine, all manner of recognition by major league baseball, the hall of fame, article writers, and book authors point to the notability of the intersection.

4) My wikistalker -- As I've explained, I have my own wikistalker, and as the above url shows I've had problems with her as recently as this week. Not having ever seen my new friend Unitanode, and because neither he nor my other new friend Johnny had mentioned that there had been a notice on this matter which Johnny had made and Unitanode was referring to that brought Unitanode to my doorstep, the thought crossed my mind that it could be my wikistalker once again. I thought that asking Unitanode the question was the Wiki way -- discussion -- and now that I've been apprised as to how he came to join this cheery discussion I totally understand and accept that he is not she, and I apologize if the question raised any hackles on his part. In any event, had his answer been yes, that of course would not in and of itself even have been sockpuppetry, since my wikistalker I understand is allowed more than one identity here, and of course further facts must be present for it to be a violation, so I had not thought my simple question would so upset Unitanode. But, seeing that it has, I apologize.--Ethelh (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral revision of the Wiki guidance at issue by Unitanode. I'm more that a little surpised: Unitanode has just now unilaterally revised the Wiki guidance at issue, with a heavy-handed, self-important, no-discussion-needed approach, so that the language would support his postion (as the guidance clearly did not support it). I've reverted, with an explanation in the edit summary. See [116] Excuse me, but it strikes me his actions may not be at all "kosher".

Who unilaterally changes the rule being interpreted at an ANI, in the middle of a discussion of the application of the rule itself, so that it says something it did not say before, supporting their position where it did not support it previously?

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states clearly that "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits."

There are very good reasons for the fact that there are different Wiki standards for text and categories in this regard. A simple perusing language of the two different standards, and the discussions between the draftspeople, makes that clear. The fact that with categories there are no citations indicating why a person is in the cat led the draftpeople to create a higher standard for the categoires (even that standard began only as an effort to avoid upsetting people who were said to be gay while they were not ... and the rule was then extended to religion ... though the line was drawn when it was considered that perhaps it should be extended to ethnicity and race (e.g., do Tiger Woods, Obama, or Ali have to self identify as being African American to be categorized as such). Text, in contrast, has citations (when people do their job), which indicate the basis of the support for the statement, and the reader can read and put a value on those citations -- hence the clearly stated different standard for text entries (reliable source). Different standards exist for citations and for text, and in this case there was a thought-through reason for establishing different standards for the two -- for the seasoned editor on the other side of the issue to seek to wriggle out of the fact that the guideline only applies to cats (not text, which has a different standard) by unilaterally changing the guideline is not the best behaviour that I've seen on Wikipedia.--Ethelh (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where, in any of the cited sources, does Fuld himself assert that he is Jewish? Someone else claiming him as "one of their own" is not sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them do so. FYI, pretty much this identical discussion, with similarly lengthy and irrelevant citations and references, is droning on and on and on and on at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the change I made was simply a change to state the obvious. 99.9% of people reading that policy will probably consider it redundant, but for the 0.1% that don't, it's helpful. And to Uncle G: posting walls of text does not mean she's actually participating in a discussion. The BLP issue is pretty straightforward; she just doesn't want to abide by the policy in question, and seems to be convinced that if she can just browbeat us with post after post denying it, we'll quit enforcing that policy. Unitanode 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to clear up this accusation of wikihounding, I'll notify the person accused (user:Betty Logan and the editor who Ethelh says warned her of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just looked through BL's contribution list, and it appears to be more issues with Ethelh, not BL. From what I can tell, the two main issues were with Ethelh edit-warring at a different baseball player article, and attempting to insert unreferenced or poorly referenced names onto a list. Unitanode 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pedro thy master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pedro_thy_master/Archive
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Lemuel

We need MANY eyes to follow this editor closely:

• His English is terrible, so nearly all his edits need copy editing.
• He's used socks to preserve his work, been blocked for it, and then threatened that he'd do anything to protect his edits.
• He should be followed by CU clerks, since he's likely used many socks that haven't been discovered.
• He has created an article about an unnotable chiropractor just because he thought he was great.[117]
• He then created a list of chiropractors for the purpose of promoting them.[118]
• Some of his work has already been deleted and/or nominated for deletion, but more should likely get AFDed.
• Instead of heeding the many warnings he has received, he deletes them from his talk page. His talk page history is a story in itself.
• He doesn't understand the need for consensus.
• He uses terrible sources, including Wikipedia itself.
• He engages in OR and crystal ball.
• He removes redirects without discussion, and those redirects sometimes actually point to sourced content. He then replaces them with stubs with no sources, and they are about future events whose notability has obviously not been established.
• He rarely discusses his edits on talk pages.
• He even made some very weird vandalism of the subpage that controls my user page after I had complained about him.
• He doesn't understand our policies much at all.
• I suspect he is very young, very immature, and/or is incapable of adapting to our environment as a useful editor.

I first noticed his problematic edits about July 22, but he likely has a long history before that. Just since July 22 he's caused enough problems to keep a cleanup crew busy full time.

His edit history is a rich mine of problems, so please start following his work. You will be quickly and richly rewarded with many finds. Maybe he'd manage better if he edited his own language Wikipedia, but I suspect he'd cause problems there as well. To stop the disruption, he needs a whole gaggle of mentors as nannys to hold his hands 6" ABOVE HIS KEYBOARD. He needs their advice and permission before he touches it! Right now he's a big liability for the project. Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have any diffs to back up all those accusations? I would like ti see some evidence of this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the need for diffs, but this case is so consistent and all pervasive that a 5 minute check of his edit history since July 22 will quickly reveal the problems I'm mentioning. Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, it would be helpful to provide, say, 3 to 5 diffs of specific things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thy Master... isn't that the product Suzanne Somers used to advertise? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LMAO! (Or perhaps I am laughing my thighs off? :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just look at his talk page history. The many warnings there will give you an obvious clue to the problems. Just fix the ones you discover. Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A vage handwave isn't enough. Since the account's editing privileges were suspended in April 2009 there have been 19 edits to User talk:Pedro thy master. (I get more than 19 edits in 3 months on my talk page.) 11 of those are simple courtesy notices of deletion nominations, created automatically by Twinkle, sometimes multiple notices about the same article. A further 1 is a notice of this very discussion. And 1 is a notice of a editing privileges being revoked for using sockpuppetry in an attempt to defraud. Please provide specific diffs of edits by this account that are cause for action and that haven't, moreover, already been addressed with administrator action. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He blanks his talkpage regularly, so you may not be seeing a full view [119]. Having said that, his behaviour does seem more like juvenile over-enthusiasm than maliciousness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not implying maliciousness, but a disruption nonetheless. Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, ok - I can see that a lot of edits are problematic - but they appear to be mostly good faith mistakes more than a deliberate attempt to vandalize or disrupt. Perhaps English isn't the native language, perhaps the age is young, perhaps they just need to learn the ropes. The last time I looked, we don't over-react to things like that here (or at least we're not supposed to). If the editor makes mistakes, talk to him/her - if they continue without heeding advice - warn. Removing edits from one's own talk pages is perfectly acceptable. (See: WP:BLANKING) I suspect that someone good at the "mentor" thing could work wonders here. I just don't see anything actionable at this point. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not implied any lack of good faith or deliberate vandalism or such like. I am not even asking for a block or ban. I'm just asking for more eyes on the situation. I thought this was the place to go for that. Unfortunately many warnings have been given, deleted, and obviously ignored. Mistakes are things that just happen and get corrected when pointed out, but these are continuous problems caused by ignoring direct warnings and advice.

Sysop ESkog is probably the admin who knows this user's problematic behaviors best. He has issued numerous warnings with little if any effect. Normally I would provide diffs with each point I have mentioned. If this had been a situation with very specific and limited problems, I would have done so. In this case the problems are so all-pervasive that the user's edit history and talk page history are very adequate as diffs. Seriously, just close your eyes and click. You will likely find some form of policy or guideline violation, or other problem that has been created for others to fix, or very often totally delete. Just try it for two minutes. You'll be surprised. Then come back and tell what you find. Very little of what this user does exists very long, but it often involves various deletion processes and formalities involving many users and much wasted time. I just want more eyes on this situation. That's all. I hope that's okay. Brangifer (talk)

Fair enough - and I agree that ESkog is doing an exceptional job in watching this. I'll look in when I have the chance, and if communication and improvements are not forthcoming, then we'll have to pursue alternate measures. I just noticed some Tina Fey edits, so I won't be surprised if ESkog isn't forced to do something here before too long. — Ched :  ?  06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked BullRangifer for 12 hours for spamming me (via email) about this. It would be understandable if the email was something like "Please help, blablabla is being disruptive he did x to article [[Foo]] (diff) and is now breaking civil (diff2,diff3)". However this is not an urgent situation in need of a block and I personally think he was spamming to try and influence the outcome of the discussion. --Chris 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've recently nominated the article List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) for deletion and, at its deletion page there appears to be alot of WP:ILIKEIT occuring, with fans of the programme wanting to keep the article for the sake of it. I was wondering if some editors could voice their views on this AfD, whether debating to keep or delete, just so we could clear establish a fair concensous without bias? Thanks, DJ 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see you already mentioned at that page that it is a debate, not a vote. The closer should take into account when opinions are rendered without policy-based rationale. That page sure is in a bit of a state, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, I have known in the past for AfD closers to purely do a quick count and make an irrational decision without reading the argument fully. That's why I raised the issue here to bring it to the attention of contributors who aren't fans of the programme, and can therefore approach the AfD with a level head. DJ 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be getting perilously close to WP:CANVASS here. The main reason for keeping the article is nothing to do with the fans. I have voted keep (and cleaned up Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) I hate the programme, never watch it, and have no idea who the housemates are, but two articles make a better format for handling the information.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is purely your opinion, and I reverted your edit. DJ 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and templated me for vandalism. Really, that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people - or look good in this venue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a block on User:Dalejenkins for disruptive editing? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Dalejenkins is taking this AfD rather too seriously; and that templating you for vandalism was rather petty. However, I'm pretty sure we've not reached the point where blocks are necessary, and I'd encourage all parties to focus on the article rather than on each other. The AfD can and will resolve itself, and most participation does seem to be in good faith. ~ mazca ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem a bit hot under the collar, but I can put up with being templated. Listing me at WP:AN/I for what is clearly an editing dispute is getting a little OTT though. Perhaps a nice cup of tea will help.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagging people to change their vote on their talk pages as you did with me is also inappropriate. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So, to review, the concern is that (a) people are voting incorrectly; (b) the closing admin may close it improperly and (c) I'm guessing but DRV won't be productive either? For (a), state it once and move on. For (b), wait until it's at least closed before debating whether a hypothetical admin could screw it up. And I suspect no matter the close, the admin will have "screwed it up." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it, with the added bonus that anyone from here who doesn't like the programme but doesn't agree with the AfD is clearly a vandal. You have to commend him on his consistency at least.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Darrenhusted is still harrassing every user who votes Keep at the AfD. I feel the need to say something to him, but don't want to turn the discussion over there into a slanging match. Is he actually overstepping the mark - unlike User:DJ he's not actually trailing people back to their talk pages and arguing with them there as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Xe isn't "harrassing". Xe is talking to people about the arguments that they present, and asking (for example) for clarifications of three-word rationales. This is very much allowed at AFD. It isn't a vote, and discussion is a good thing. Try discussing back. (And don't resort to poor tactics such as calling the discussion contributions of those whose positions you disagree with harrassment.) You never know, you might change xyr mind, or xe might change yours. This is one of the reasons that we have discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong Uncle G - I'm all for discussion. However, a couple of editors now have commented at the AfD on the tone and manner of Darrenhusted's responses to their !votes, so it's not just me. I note your opinion that he is not overstepping the mark though, and will refrain from commenting further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No issue: DR Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor split History of the United States (1991–present) to two articles 1990s in the United States and 2000s in the United States with no discussion and no justification to do so. This decade scheme puts these two articles at odds with the rest of the 'History of the United States ( - )' articles, which have cutoff points based on historically significant turns of events in US History--not decades, and differs from the naming scheme of the rest of such articles, differs from their category names, etc. Request these article and re-direct changes be properly reversed. Hmains (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content issue, not an admin issue. Have you talked to the editor about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no answer from the offending editor. I will see if one is forthcoming. This is the about the same as what another editor did previously and was then reversed administratively. Because of the redirects and editing history involved, I believe only Administrators can fix this problem. Hmains (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Page protected for 24 hours by RxS (talk · contribs); talk page discussion underway to hopefully settle the issue. ~ mazca ^talk 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two participants are continually removing large contents of text ([120][121][122][123]) despite their being concensus to keep it (Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/archive3#Houemates_section). They have also left rude messages at the article's talk page and, by working in a pair, have ensured that I can't edit the changes due to WP:3RR. Help would be appreciated. DJ 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism, it is a content dispute stemming from the AfD two sections above. I would suggest an uninvolved admin full-protect this article briefly as there is some serious edit warring occurring right now that needs to be resolved via discussion from both sides. ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to check the definition of vandalism. This is not vandalism, this is bringing article content in line with established consensus. You are trying to force new changes with no consensus, while trying to claim there is. Your disruptive editing is not welcome here. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2:Content layout and formatting dispute. After DJ attempt at canvassing support for his deletion nomination above, I took a look and came to the opposite conclusion - ie that there is no consensus to adopt the new and more difficult format to support the deletion of the second article. We are discussing this on the talkpage (when DJ takes a breather from templating me for vandalism to his beloved article). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I protected this page for 24 hours while this gets worked out. Content dispute, yes. Vandalism, no. RxS (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I edited it once. I have not, and have no intention of, reverting DJ's reversion of my edit. However, I do believe that other editors also disagree with his stance, and would encourage further discussion in a collegiate atmosphere.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the user in question has decided to start a vote to get his own way. Anyone care to fill him in on what consensus is? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Beeblebrox has closed the vote down. While I understand his reasoning, I'm not sure that it's wise.... We shall have to see where things go next.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, I did that because it was WP:FORUMSHOPping, and an apparent attempt to stifle conversation as opposed to encouraging it. Discussion should of course continue, but a poll in the middle of an AfD seems kind of ridiculous from a user who was just complaining about the AfD being to much of a vote... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely support your reasoning - I did think a poll was a little pointless - the solution will depend to a greater or lesser extent on the outcome of the AfD, so discussion needs to cover a number of options. I'm just not sure how it will appear to DJ. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Darrenhusted has removed your close note on the poll at Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK). He is also attempting to argue that the fact that the section didn't change for about 3 weeks was "consensus by silence". I guess this is our answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit and other similar edits by 94.44.4.253 are obviously being made by User: Celebration1981 in defiance of an indefinite block. This is evident by the contentious edits to the same article, Transformer, and the same sort of personal attacks within the edit summaries.

I request whatever measures needed to suppress the evasion, such as a long block of 94.44.4.253 and semi-protection of Transformer for around two weeks. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the IP blocking to someone else. I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, which I see you think won't be enough, but if there are problems after that I'll extend the protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP - clearly Celebration editing in defiance of his block. However there is only one edit made by that IP - any others?--VS ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually three edits to Talk:History of television by IP 94.44.4.235 on 24 July — two constituting a single edit. Not bad — eschewing the "Preview" button he often uploads six or more edits of the same content before he's finished. What a Wiki-world, eh? :) Rico402 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I was given a warning for Biting a newcomer by User:Blueboy96. The Warning doesn't give any details of who I bit. I did try to ask him to clarify as the closeest thing to biting a new comer I found was [[124]] where I warned a new authoer about a possible conflict of interest. I did however explain myself at the same time with "Now, I'm just spitballing here and I might be wrong but you may have a conflict of interest in this subject. (assuming you are Marty Kopulsky) please read all the relevant policies to write a article about a person. If you have any questions drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do what I can" if this is what he's warning about It's complete bullshit. I would ask for comment on this warning from the community and if it is found to be issued frivously that the Admin be directed to strike it.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it might have been nice to give him more than an hour to respond to your question before you brought him to ANI - perhaps it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps you've interpreted something differently. Also, remember that you're entirely free to remove any messages, including warnings, from your talk-page at any time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to run an errand unexpectedly when this came down ... I was referring to Bebobabbity (talk · contribs), whose only offense seemed to be creating test articles. However, I come back to find out s/he's already blocked. Indef is entirely too harsh, I think--in fact, I was just about to buzz the blocking admin about it when this notice showed up. Blueboy96 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block would be harsh. However that editor created 3 articles on blatant hoaxes. It is disruptive and vandalism. Again how is it biting to wp:duck?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first article was text copied from the Wikipedia blurb that comes up when you start an article, the second and third consisted of only a signature. WP:AGF would say we might consider the possibility that a new user was trying to figure out how to make a page. Frankly, without any content, even if the film/game involved don't exist, we really can't know if it was a deliberate hoax, vandalism, or simply a noob trying to write about something s/he saw on a chat board somewhere.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily fault HiaB for templating the editor, but I would have hoped that someone would have had the sense to drop the editor a more personal note before the block, saying "Hey, I see you're having some trouble here. Give me a clue what you're trying to do so I can walk you through it." We would have found out very quickly that way if it was a good faith attempt at an article or a hoaxer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW ... 3 edits and then "indef" - that does seem rather harsh. I agree with Fabrictramp (and Blueboy), that we need to ease up on the biting. We should be helping editors become acclimated to our environment; rather than skipping over level 1 and level 2 warnings. Let's talk to folks first before we kick them to the curb. Everybody was new at one time. I guess it's a moot point to notify the user of this thread at this point, but... Back to the topic at hand though - I don't see any action by Blueboy here that warrants an ANI review. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've worked with Mark (LHvU) before, and he's a pretty reasonable guy. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he reduced it to time served or 24 hr. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{uw-vandal3}} as a first warning is very unusual, isn't it? Even pretty obvious serial IP vandals don't get that treatment. I thought you were supposed to start with {{uw-vandal1}} if there was the slightest chance the edit(s) were good faith, and {{uw-vandal2}} if not (e.g. offensive comments added to an article). - Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. In this case I did elevate for what could be considered bordeline edits. I do understand what the issue is now. I appreciate the time people took to comment on this situation and I will adjust my behaviors accordingly. If you'd like feel free to mark as resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Tonywalton suggested that I post here. It seems strong admin action is needed, based on, e.g.

• [unreasonable bulk PRODding]
• the 3 topics starting here: [[125]].
• past AN/I discussion of this user and its socks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Sfan00_IMG
• the above are just the 1st 3 things I found. There is NO indication on the current user page that this user is a sock of User:ShakespeareFan00, but the last AN/I says it is acknowledged.

--Elvey (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what admin action do you feel is required here? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken the liberty of letting ShakespeareFan know about this thread (via IRC). It is normally considered polite to let people know you are talking about them at the noticeboards. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Elvey - User:ShakespeareFan00 does indeed indicate that Sfan00_IMG is his sock, and bear in mind that IMG is his most active account.  GARDEN  21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everyone – see this very very very very very very very very long thread on the subject as well. – iridescent 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggested Elvey post here rather than on AIV as a more appropriate noticeboard. I also pointed out to Elvey the very^8 long thread mentioned by Iridescent. Since that thread appears dormant perhaps a resolution might be thrashed out here. Apologies in advance if I'm not too assiduous in posting on this page as I'm currently enjoying the fun off-wiki game called "keeping my solicitor focussed because I'm trying to sell a house" Tonywalton ^Talk 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Bad article creation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created two article so far that are pure vandalism. Mary Jammies and Radio Kazam are just mass vandalism articles (and tagged as such) and the first is just plain offensive to some. With the user's name "Bad article creation bot", it is obvious they aren't here for good (yeah, I know AGF). Also, their username has been reported to UAA. In the meantime, should something be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Harej (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed after checking on the contribs. That was fast :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too fast if you ask me. Maybe Harej is a bot.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I first became aware of Carmegenon, when he posted this on my talk page a few weeks ago. He's not really active, but a review of the few edits he makes, shows that apparently holds a grudge against me. His edit pattern leads me to believe this is User:Jimblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I got blocked last year. I didn't really feel like taking action, since he seemed inactive, but today I received this lovely message. Can someone please block the nuisance?--Atlan (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a death threat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef for personal attacks.  GARDEN  21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since mid June, There's been in a dispute with the following user over a certain detail of official storyline for the Tekken video game series. Initially, I believed that a citation from a primary source(i.e. documentation from the game's own creators) would be enough to end this.(diff: [126] This IP user was me, not realizing that I wasn't logged in.)

However, adding the citation was met with hostility and accusations of bad faith from User:ImBeowolf (see diffs: [127], [128]). I opted to address this directly to the user.(diff: [129]) I explained that the citation is from the NTSC:U/C version's booklet. I would later amend the citation to specify this([130]). I even noted that he didn't have to take my word for it and that the official Tekken website collaborated my edit. This again lead to stubbornness and insults from the user (diff:[131]). I request that this user be at least temporarily blocked. I've tried to discuss this issue, but I will not repeat myself and go back and forth with this user on this issue. Nor will I entertain his ridiculous accusations of being a "fanboy." Thank you. --GD 6041 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, he doesn't understand that these types of games have multiple endings, with only one turning out to be canon. Let's wait and see what happens when and if he edits again.--Atlan (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you're getting that vibe; However looking at his certain edits and the exact details he alters, I think the user understands that. The problem is that the user is misinterpreting the events of the official storyline based on his own assumptions, since the plot point in question is never made clear outside of documentation from the game's developers(i.e. character bios found on official sites, guide books, or manuals). "Waiting to see what happens" is what I did earlier this month. All this user has done and will continue to do is replace the same cited content with original research and misinformation while throwing insults and ad honinem attacks. While this user is not frequent, he has shown IMO more than enough times that his behavior isn't going to change.--GD 6041 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coraline II: The Door Reopens seems to be a nonexistent movie. Given the user name, which seems to be a plea for attention, and the vast and clearly nonsensical dollar sums in some of the revisions of the page (eg [132]) is this the Disney Vandal again? -- The Anome (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a $110 trillion movie... maybe that's where all the money ended up from the banking crisis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are the Disney Vandal, or a DUCK-alike, can someone please block them, and any alternates they may currently have active, and revert their edits? -- The Anome (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one is Bambifan, but it may be our third Disney vandal who has run around creating fake articles under some other socks before. CU might be needed to find the parent (can't remember its name, but was messing around with the Disney album articles as well) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article. Can I have some help in reverting the rest of their edits, please? -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed same user as Evncollin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Evencollins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); please review the contribs here. Thatcher 02:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked and tagged. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin

Ryulong and JPG-GR have stated that they will seek me topic banned from Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles should I put up another page in those categories for deletion for verification issues. As many of you know, there was previously an AN discussion about Ryulong warning him against his past "if you do it, I will seek that you get blocked" statements. Now, these two editors are stating things like "if you do it, we will seek that you get topic-banned". Ryulong is stating that he will do it through community discussion, while JPG-GR is apparently doing it due to the conduct probation on me, which I don't see how this applies. There is also currently a request for clarification here regarding it. I am not asking anyone to do anything about JPG-GR, but I am about Ryulong. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do however have to apologize for my tone in the late part of the discussion. Please forgive me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon has done absolutely nothing to contribute constructively in the topic area that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu covers. All he has done is request sourcing, and then send articles to AFD for which he personally cannot find any sources for. This was last evident in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo, where reliable sources were found, but he dismissed them anyway. He has most recently decided to search for reliable sources on the five remaining articles on individual episodes of Power Rangers and will send them to AFD because he will inevitably never find what he considers reliable sources for the pilot episode, as well as a few other major episodes to the series as a whole. JPG-GR (talk · contribs), an administrator who primarily edits in the topic area (or had), plainly stated that if Mythdon went through with his plan, he would begin a discussion to ban Mythdon from editing any and all pages that are within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu.

I know that I am only a few editors in the WikiProject who are tired of Mythdon's strict applications of policy and the constant drain on our resources to make every single page comply with his demands. I've wanted to have him banned from the topic area long before the arbitration case that made it fairly clear that he should not do as he is planning without input from other users. We gave him input, he simply does not like it. He is such a pain in the ass to editors who are involved in the WikiProject and who actually contribute. I've written up articles. JPG-GR has written up articles. Other editors have written up articles or worked on already existing articles. Mythdon has done none of this. All he does is randomly question when IP users add information to the article about things that happened in a recent episode of a TV show that Mythdon does not watch, yet he still undoes or reverts their edits. I know that if I had enough time, I could give diffs and whatnot, and I am sure that JPG-GR, once he is notified of this debacle, will provide enough information to further elaborate his and my case against Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did watch Power Rangers, and yes, JPG-GR already has been notified. See their talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this thread as a direct violation of your probation: 1) Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. 2) Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. 3) 6) Mythdon is strongly urged: (A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions; (B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

This is not the first time I've seen you be disruptive in the past few days. As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project. Tan | 39 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Considering the project in question involves shows with people in rubber costumes beating the crap out of each other, I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing...) HalfShadow 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs over at RFAR. I can't read the case result to mean that Myth can't start AfDs or work on the project, but someone else might rightfully do so. The arbs can clarify and then myth can be topic banned or not topic banned. If the case is found to cover this behavior, then the topic ban should hold and myth should find some other area to edit. If the case is not found to hold, then these pretty bold threats should be retracted. Also, tan, I'm not sure "As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project." is a terribly productive comment for this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they clarify that AfD is not covered by the probation, then further threats would be even worse than threats now. provided that community discussion supports my AfD procedures. Until anything is clarified, I will not put another article in the subject area up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk: Whether or not Mythdon can or will be topic banned is up to the community, not the arbitration committee. He is under arbitration restrictions, but a topic ban proposal should definitely not be forbidden from taking place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the enforcement of the probation, topic bans are an enforcement by administrators. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban can be proposed by a user and then confirmed by the community and enforced by the administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You should also know that administrators can, if they choose, topic ban me if I am inconsistent in terms of conduct at WikiProject Tokusatsu, but as far as I know, I am consistent in terms of conduct, but ArbCom will clarify whether the AfD thing is part of the probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been well-aware of Mythdon's habitual disruption for some time now, even before the arbitration case. During the period when I was either editing anonymously or not editing at all, I occasionally checked WT:TOKU and found it consisted largely of highly-disruptive edits by Mythdon. His behavior has not improved one bit since the arbitration case. Further, I'm not sure if a topic-ban from pages under WP:TOKU will be sufficient to curb his disruption; after the arbitration case, he took his disruption to other pages, such as Common Era. There was a long discussion on his talk page about that fracas, where he proves that he is incapable of understanding the rudiments of WP:V and WP:CITE. One arbitrator, FayssalF, has censured Mythdon over his behavior well after the arbitration case was closed. You may view the discussion; I agree with FayssalF's statement that "Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings". Mythdon doesn't just need topic-banned from pages under WP:TOKU; he needs to be restricted solely to contributing new content to Wikipedia. This means he should be banned from the entire Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces and banned from deleting content for any reason or advocating deletion of content on talk pages. jgpTC 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jgp, FayssalF did not say that. He said that was apparently the case. To restrict me from removing content for any reason is not anything anyone can support. You seem to be unaware of the consequences of not citing sources, or having articles that you can't reliably source. Just because I don't actually add content doesn't make me disruptive. I remove unsourced information that needs a source per WP:V and WP:RS. I am not habitually disrupting Wikipedia in any way. These AfD's needed to happen, whether or not the result would be in my favor, or other editors favor. I can assure you that I am here to help, not disrupt. My efforts are to motivate sourcing content, not motivate nonsense demands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 'the community' can topic ban people. But it is totally inappropriate for a wikiproject to topic ban a person simply because that person is afding their articles. We have to ensure that we aren't using the topic ban tool to enforce opinions about content. And frankly when I read the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin thread I don't see a 'community' topic ban. I see an ultimatum: "stop sending articles to AfD or we will topic ban you". Protonk (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now somebody's getting it. You phrased it well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk - I understand why I probably should have used different words there, but really, what I said wasn't any different than straight-up blocking someone - "you are not competent to edit here" isn't meant as an insult so much as a statement of fact. For whatever reason, I feel that Mythdon does not have the proper skills - i.e., he is incompetent - to be a productive member of Wikipedia's collegiate and collaborative community. Some people use the term "incompetent" as a pejorative term; I meant it in its literal sense. Tan | 39 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're capable and willing to parse the multiple connotations of the word competent. That's why I didn't accuse you of engaging in a personal attack (you didn't) and I didn't demand that you rephrase the comment. But there are less adversarial ways to suggest that someone isn't getting the point or that they are being more of a bother than a help. "Competence", especially in the online world, is a word fraught with import and emotion--as you note, since competence is required accusing someone of incompetence disinvites them from the social world. That's critical and I don't think it is to be tossed around lightly. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk: The AFDs are not the only issue. It is the fact that Mythdon has not shown in any way shape or form that he can contribute collaboratively with other members of the WikiProject. Mythdon has been shown to be inable to apply sourcing and verifiability policies to the extent that he sends articles to AFD when he personally cannot find anything that he personally believes is a reliable source. He does not contribute to any articles in the scope of the WikiProject, and does not improve the coverage of any articles in the scope of the WikiProject. Instead, he goes "This has no sources" or "This doesn't have enough sources" which to him means "This is not notable" or "This information is not verifiable" when there is more than enough on the internet and in the real world to prove him wrong.

And this sourcing shit goes beyond articles about people in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other. He was told off for his edits at Common Era and a whole bunch of other articles. This thread is wikilawyering to get his way, as he states towards the end of the discussion at WT:TOKU. I have not seen Mythdon contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia in more than a year of being up my ass (and not in the good way) on the articles I edit and on other articles I see him editing. There was no "community topic ban" produced yet. It was a statement that if he proceeded to edit the way he claimed he was going to, we would discuss the fact that he be topic banned from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU. His actions tonight in starting up this thread have abbreviated the need for this, because he went forward to wikilawyer his way out of getting topic banned by saying JPG-GR and I were acting improperly. I've yet to see a positive contribution come from him. And that is more than enough to get banned from any website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure. But pretend you are me. Look at the TOKU section devoid of context (I know that we are supposed to contextualize these disputes, but bear with me). That conversation has three participants, you, myth and jpg (with some other minor comments from different users). Between the three of you all that gets exchanged is an intent to continue sending articles to AfD, a broad warning that sending said articles will result in a ban, and escalation of rhetoric on either side. I hesitate to call myth's actions wikilawyering because frankly, in the absence of a RFAR allowing a unilateral topic ban for myth, I would be ashamed of jpg's threats. First the sort of officious 'intent to seek a topic ban' statement: "If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia." This is followed up a veiled threat, "I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves." Later, you and myth exchange words to the effect that you will seek to topic ban him and then make some vague assertion that his present actions will be proscribed under some future topic ban. This is the opposite of a community forum discussing the ban of a pernicious troublemaker. This is two people in a dispute arguing in an infrequently traveled part of the wiki. I don't mean to say that myth is right. I don't mean to say that he is helpful or that a topic ban, rightly constituted, would be illegitimate. I do mean to say that he shouldn't be considered topic banned now and he isn't wrong to seek some outside input on a process that he clearly has no input on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon is following policies and guidelines and Ryulong is not following policies and guidelines e.g. i added a reference to the Power Rangers article to show that Haim Saban created Power Rangers per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research then Ryulong starts a discussion on my talk page saying "Do Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers really need references to show that the series was created by Haim Saban? Something like that is so freaking obvious that any statement with that fact in it does not need to be cited." and when i add a fact tag to the Kamen Rider Double article per WP:No original research, Ryulong again starts a discussion on my talk page saying "This is also common sense. Shinkenger is on at 7:30, which is followed by Decade at 8:00, both of which make up the Super Hero Time block. If Double will be airing at 8:00 too, then it will also be part of the Super Hero Time block". Mythdon is not the only user to disagree with Ryulong as me and Drag-5 disagree with Ryulong because he is not following the policies and guidelines. Powergate92Talk 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powergate92, as usual, you don't really add anything to the discussion. Both of those items you bring up are examples of using common sense over requesting that every single sentence on Wikipedia be referenced. Bringing up two different instances of where you and I communicated is pointless and helps no one case.

Protonk, I can understand that the page is in no way frequented and it is simply a discussion between Mythdon, myself, and JPG-GR, but this is in all reality just a way for Mythdon to avoid being put under any other restrictions. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the discussion would be taking place in a low-traffic page such as WT:TOKU. Mythdon is by all means in his right to defend himself from being topic banned. However no discussion has taken place, and the arbitration committee does not need to place the restrictions on him. This is instead, as I've been saying, Mythdon wikilawyering his way out of getting banned by throwing aspersions on me for arguing against him. If the arbitration committee needs to place the topic ban, then fine. I just thought that given enough evidence, the community as a whole can see how his activities are deleterious to the topic area, and the project as a whole. If FayssalF saw this, I don't see why the rest of community cannot either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions. I hope someone can answer them USING AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE.
i) Is it disrutive for someone to ask for a verifiable reliable source for, eg, "creator of mighty morphing power rangers"?
ii) Is it disruptive for someone to use the production company (and did they actually 'create' it, or just pay money for it? as a reference?
iii) Imagine it is disruptive: What happens? It goes to RFAR, or someone just says "that's it, you're topic banned" or what?
Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—I just emptied out the FFD backlog except for two discussions which I've commented in and so would have a COI closing. I was wondering if another admin could close the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion#Old discussions to finish clearing the backlog? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed one of them, but would recommend leaving the other open, since there seems to still be discussion that may lead to eventual consensus occurring, even eleven days after it was listed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA who only edits a few topics. Is completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway. I haven't been reverting against him but he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking, so it would be easier for a new person to block him just to save the unblock reviewer a need to reply to more conspiracy diatribes YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited in two days, so a block seems kinda' punitive at this point, and a poor method to communicate. I've left him a message about how there isn't a WP:CABAL et cetera, and I'll keep an eye on it in case he doesn't take the hint. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He edits infrequently but is consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia. I don't generally like the idea of an indefinite block but honestly don't see mediation going anywhere. It doesn't help that his comments are rambling and lengthy. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've to agree with BL Nguyen and RegentsPark on this issue. After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. I'll block Hindutashravi for 1 month; if he continues to disrupt en.wikipedia after the block expires, he should be indefinitely blocked from editing en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Tuesday, July 21, a very persistent and contentious IP was blocked for 1 week for persistent vandalism. IP 24.229.244.235 was blocked after a series of edits bordering on vandalism and then posting contentious responses to attempts by editors and administrators to intervene. User talk:24.229.244.235 is a chronicle of how this played out. One of the articles edited by the IP was Masiela Lusha. Those edits included various similar additions, including a specific paragraph about her early acting career, added here, and removed as being unsourced and a WP:BLP violation. The content was returned here, here, here, here, and here before being blocked. Along with the block, a note was also posted on the IP talk page [133], denoting an extended block could result with further abuse. Tonight, a newly registered username, User:Kikimaya987654321, popped up to once again return similar WP:BLP content concerns, including the specific and rather uniquely worded "Acting career" paragraph, here, effectively registering an account in order to continue editing despite the IP block. This IP needs to be blocked longer and the new username blocked as well for acting in defiance of the block. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the account for two weeks and reset the IP's block to match. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by Protonk

Joebrock (talk · contribs) has been editing here since February, inserting copyright violations and uploading book covers with the claim that they are the owner of copyright. Despite several warnings, they continue to upload and insert copyrighted material. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted on his talk page, it's 'indef', not infinite. If he responds and makes it clear that he understands our policies, we can shorten the block. I deleted a bunch of the images (some were orphaned, some were at PUI) and I'll look at some of the text copyvios in a bit. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chidel was blocked a while ago as the account was editing from an open proxy. Since then, the editor has used (at least) three further open proxies, namely 85.249.33.2 (talk · contribs), 190.146.244.52 (talk · contribs), and currently 207.61.241.100 (talk · contribs). Each set of IP edits would pass the WP:DUCK test with respect to them clearly being Chidel, indeed in one case admitted to being Chidel. I'm no expert on open proxies and have listed those that I believe I've found at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, for each of them to be blocked. My question here is if the edits pass WP:DUCK and if a search (e.g. on Google?) reveals each of these IPs to be open proxies, should we just block them on sight? The turnaround at the Wikiproject is pretty slow (I think only one user is active there - User:OverlordQ). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three IPs have been confirmed and blocked as open proxies. Sockpuppets can be blocked on sight. When formulating the block, as always you must make a judgment about how long the user/computer will remain on its current IP address. Google searches, DNSBLs, portscans, etc, can be used to provide clues about open proxies, but should not be relied on for confirmation. There is practically no reliable way to confirm an open proxy other than attempting to use it, and there is no way to determine its longevity other than guessing through experience. These three IPs have been blocked for a combination of six months, one year, and two years. If in doubt about whether future IPs are open proxies then just block them for a short time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, very informative answer. I note the user has already switched to 98.222.42.233 (talk · contribs) - any chance you could once more use your experience to judge this one? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]