I believe this ANI thread to be a WP:DUCK of Badfaith. This editor has nerve to make Edits to support a unfounded POV (that politico has mysterious ties to Repulican leadership), with a Cherry pick a quote from a website to support his view. Throws unfounded acusations agianst two editors of Tag-teaming in an ANI thread complete with diffs and then has the audacity to claim he didnt know what he was doing. I highly doubt this to be a case of WP:Competence Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you're keen to interpret policy & guidelines, please explain this revert in light of "What is not vandalism" (particularly the assumption of NPOV violation). -PrBeacon (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between adding Garbage to a page. A Quick look at your Edit history show a long term pattern of making controversial Edits to push a POV, and Gaming the system to do, this ANI thread is baloney. The Number of Mediation threads and complaints at notice boards you have posted is absurd. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please go back to discussing the content on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemonster18 was blocked in January 2010 for "repeated addition of unsourced information" by Kurt Shaped Box. After the block expired, Pagemonster18 received two warnings for adding unsourced materials in February 2010. In June 2010, Pagemonster18 has added unsourced materials that were reverted by other editors: Justin Bieber [link], Logan Lerman [link], Liam O'Brien [link], Negima! Magister Negi Magi [link], and Spider-Man (film series) [link]. Can you please investigate? Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user. Please remember to substitute the template {{ANI-notice}} on the talk page of those you mention here. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. You were very quick. Davtra (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having not being particularly active on WP recently, I hadn't noticed that Pagemonster18 was continuing to play 'fantasy casting' and add extremely dubious fan speculation (almost to the level of fanfiction) across a wide range of articles (his usertalk too). Had I been aware, I'd more than likely have blocked him/her indefinitely by now, as to be brutally honest, he/she seems to fail to grasp the concept of what this site is actually for and shows little sign ever of wising up and editing constructively. Regardless of whether action is taken against Pagemonster18, I'd recommend that every single edit he/she has ever made be scrutinised for accuracy by someone familiar with the subject matter in question... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update, Pagemonster18 continued to add unsourced materials after this notice was posted. Two of Pagemonster18's contributions were reverted: Mark Hamill [link], and Willa Holland [link]. Davtra (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

I looked through all of Pagemonster18's contributions in May 2010. For your information, Pagemonster18 was first warned about adding unsourced materials in August 2009. Most of the contributions were reverted for adding unsourced data from 4 May 2010 to 28 May 2010: Rain (entertainer) link, Cameron Richardson link, Chris Pine link, Ashley Greene link, Transformers: War for Cybertron link, Adam Sandler link, Aaron Eckhart link, Katie Leung link, Clarisse La Rue link, Ben 10: Ultimate Alien link, Lindsey Shaw link, List of Naruto antagonists link, Jetfire link, Debby Ryan link, Josh Keaton link, The Super Hero Squad Show link. I don't have confidence in Pagemonster18's contributions. Pagemonster18 doesn't even question why his/her contributions were reverted. I don't think the message is getting across. Davtra (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, I'm very close to indef blocking already. I've noted on their talk page that the next time they add unverifiable casting notes to Wikipedia they will be indef blocked. Fences&Windows 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here [18] he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also [19] this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [20]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [21]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden ^cool 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden ^cool 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I do apologize for bothering you fellas with this after the above thread, but I should like the matter formally addressed.)

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [22], User:Sir Floyd [23], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy [24]. He promptly took offense, deleted the warning, ordering me not to post on his talkpage in the future [25], and reported me here [26] (in an apparent attempt to post a classic "preemptive report"), and then simply resumed the activities [27]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should be much obliged if someone notifies the user that he has been reported, as he has just ordered me not to post on his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know how to make enemies, do you ? This is utterly absurd. The fact that several users have (in the first place) contacted me about current issues being debated, and that I have answered them and suggested that they give their opinions on the various project pages has nothing to do with such puerile accusations.

"Recruiting his own meat army".... This is simply pathetic. Words fail to describe the sheer absurdity of this claim. I have seen a lot of hostility and bad faith on wikipedia but this one definitely takes the cake.

I do not know Theirrulez and Sir Floyd. They wrote me a message, I answered them. End of the story. We seem to be in accordance regarding some issues, but that's it. I have no idea of their personal opinions on more global matters.

And indeed, many "Yugoslav" articles are in a deplorable condition and woefully biased. May I add that I have not read their respective revision histories and have, for the most, part, no idea who wrote them ? Why, oh why, does Direktor feels targeted ? If I am not mistaken, he never edited this or this or this (all insufficient articles, that have nothing whatsoever to do with him).

As for Theirrulez being "recently blocked", may I add that Direktor was also "recently blocked" ? (not that I care at all).

More bad faith from Direktor : the link he provides to "prove" that I "simply resumed the activities" ([28] : does he mean that I have resumed hostile activities against him ?) is simply a correction on a message that I had left earlier on Sir Floyd's page. A grammatical correction. The message was written, as far as I can remember, prior to the pathetic exchange that I had with Direktor.

Moreover, he (deliberately ?) misquotes me : the exact sentences are "A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)" and "the article looks like it was written by a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)." Meaning : these articles are bad, they look like they were written by one or several pov-pushers. Which is what I think.

Indeed, I order Direktor not to post on my talk page in the future. I find this user's attitude unbearable and his arrogance wearisome. What he does here proves further his aggressive intentions towards me. I have no interest whatsoever in any contact or exchange with this user - occasional project pages excluded, of course - and hope this wish will be respected in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, JJG talks in general, not acusing any particular editors, but you seem to feel identified with the description he does on a particular way of editing. Perhaps you are acknolledging your own actions on his words... FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's called gaming the system, Fkp. In the given context it is perfectly clear who he was referring to with these obscenities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I was referring to several, possible, undeterminated people, as probable culprits for the deplorable state of the articles. If anything, I insulted the articles, which are indeed bad and which, by definition, have much more than one "author". And, also, you misquoted me (see above) in order to make what I say appear more agressive. If you feel targeted and insulted, that is your problem. If you feel the need to fuel our mutual hostility, that is also your problem. Now I consider that this absurd exchange should simply end, for I have no interest whatsoever in it. I think we should simply leave it at that, and simply abstain from talking to each other in the future. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? These "cretins" then, when did you "debate pointlessly" with them? Please. Despite your apparent assumption to the contrary, people are not stupid. Either way, the posts are there and they're reasonably brief, leave it to the admins to have a quick look at your two threads and make a decision. Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way... I honestly did not expect such animosity from you JJG. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing you: "Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way" , you must be joking, right? Anyway, you seem to have adopted the tactic of making allways a counter-report any time someone reports you (you did that with me several times), even if necessary to go around looking digging old discussions, just to find some reason. What you are reporting here has been your usual behavior for months. In some discussions we had, you made me go trouth some old archives of talk pages, where I found many interesting stuff about you. Then you and those users just begin doing less that on eachothers talk pages, probably because you found out that is way better to make those comments via e-mail. But you still can´t resist making them as you recently did with LAz21 on eachother talkpages about me. To be honest, I think you just hate to see that you were caught in what you were doing and the worste is that many users became aware of it and started talking with eachother. It really is not their fault and as you already admited, you are starting to be quite famous around, but don´t get too excited about it, because you´re becoming famous for the bad reasons. Even I receved several several anonim congratulations (as seen on my talk page) because I stood up to your behavior, from people that just gave up because, from I understood, they simply don´t want to participate in discussions that include you. The complains on you are numerous, and honestly beleave that you are doing much harm to WP. The problem is not what you defend, but how you do it. You can even be right in some cases (I had real dificulties to find even one edit war or discussion where you were completely right), but all this complains are certainly not all wrong. You should/could really try to change and I definitely hate to see excellent WP contributors like JJG (even you admited that) to think to abandon the WP project because they have no patience neither wish to deal with you. WP is a wanderfull place that allows everybody to be part of an encyclopedia. It is hard to understand that you just prefer to spend most of the time here the way you do. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is reminiscent of the Gunpowder Plot done in Pantomime. We are at the point where the "doubtful swords" are exchanged for bladders and the participants beat each other about the head and neck. I would have hoped that these participants had learned something from the Draža Mihailović mediation by now, but sadly, no. Some good faith would be a boon, as would sticking to content, not the contributor. Would all concerned be willing to try focussing on content once more? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it may be, but JJG is behaving rather inappropriately, to say the least, in an area that should be regulated by the ARBMAC restriction. Let's look at some of what DIREKTOR has had to face in the last few days: "Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Direktor's agressivity and arrogance to be unbearable". [29]; "unless one is a hyper-sensitive Tito fanboy". [30]; "labeling him a traitor... is stupid to say the least" [31]; "Yugoslav articles look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV pushers" [32]; "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins".[33];"IMHO, it is useless to argue endlessly with Direktor, or even to discuss with him at all. Sources should be provided if there are some. That's it. And as for the "encyclopedic" nature of the word "regime", his arguments are absurd". [34]; "Direktor, you don't make sense. IMHO, you never do". [35]; "I seriously doubt that you have any knowledge at all besides a few pages glimpsed on google books". [36]; "No, I'd prefer that you stop contributing entirely to wikipedia, but I suppose it's useless to wait for miracles". [37]. Nobody should have to tolerate this sustained campaign of personal abuse. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alasdair, I agree that there have been inappropriate statements made. And there are different styles too: Voluble vs. acerbic. But really, is it worse to make oblique comments about "insane trolls" or to accuse someone of "meatpuppetry? I have no idea. What amazes me is the seemingly infinite capacity of participants to be outraged by each other's comments. As Shimeru observed in the previous outburst on this page, these are "tiresome nationalism-inspired conflicts." One might only hope that the players will begin to lighten up. Sunray (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Accuse someone of meatpuppetry"? Sunray, if those posts of JJG's are not WP:CANVASSING, we need a new definition.

Say rather: "Is it worse to make oblique comments about 'insane trolls', or to canvass users to sway consensus? I have no idea." Apparently this will all go down under "crazy Balkans badlands nonsense", and the insults and recruitment will be ignored once more. I mean seriously, (over-)neutrality is one thing, but ignoring these wikicliques only makes things far worse when their "plans" come to fruition... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koman Coulibaly blew a call in the US vs. Slovenia game and his page is now under heavy attack. I've fully protected for now but would appreciate some additional admin eyes (e.g. on the talk page) as I'm not able to monitor very much. Ronnotel (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it. If you see any other pages under attack, ping me on the talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is back to semi it seems, but it could still use some additional eyes. It is slowly moving into the direction of becoming libel where most of the article is criticizing the subject - either for this match or for past offenses. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an article in USA Today regarding the vandalism here if any is interested. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid media... They seriously took a screenshot of the vandalism and posted it to show people? Anyway, watching page. Netalarm^talk 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry?? You lot allowed the vandalism to take place, and then criticize those who call you on it? 182.239.133.49 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You lot"? Who is that? Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not by a paid staff. Let me ask, did you do anything about reverting valdalism on that article, or bring it to anyone's attention? If not, then "you lot" includes yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also need help at Roberto Rosetti, another World Cup referee who made a disputed call today. 86.145.163.16 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP (110.54.137.133) has deliberately changed dates to incorrect values, mostly air dates, on cartoon articles since March of this year. Most of those went unnoticed, although almost all were eventually fixed by regular editors. The IP has been warned, and received a 1 week block a little while back. This has only continued. Almost all of their edits are of this variety (a few early on appeared to be legitimate). There is never an explanation or source provided and the user's never engaged in dialogue.

Just to ensure that these are actual errors, I spot checked a few, and those examples follow.

• I Am Weasel IMBD source, diff similar
• List of Johnny Bravo episodes IMDB source diff
• Evil Con Carne source diff (Note that the IP changed the date for the end to match IMDB (the start date does not match IMDB) but IMDB doesn't list the last episode--the Dec 31 date had been there since early 2008 with this addition, and was changed by another IP (187.171.8.1), although it remained in the same month (that other IP might warrant investigating, but it's from a different geographical area))
• Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol Date source diff (VHS tapes in 1984 were pretty expensive, hard to imagine a children's video coming out like that)

As for the early on edits, this edit was in fact correct. It was originally correct in the article but had persisted for a long time due to this edit by a [geographically unrelated] IP [38]. This was early, so I don't know if it was a legitimate correction or just a random change that got it right.

Keep in mind, although I'm using IMDB as a source, these changed long-established dates on here. If this editor's on a crusade to fix erroneous IMDB dates, they haven't said as much or provided any evidence.

I looked for other IP ranges a little bit, but not extensively. The editing history speaks for itself, and the occurrence of some correct changes is odd, but given the absolute lack of communication, these issues have gone on long enough. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I in the right place with this? I figured it's not "active" enough to be at WP:AIV, and Long term abuse is not a notice board. Should it be at WP:AN instead? I'm surprised nobody has responded. Shadowjams (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this IP for three months, as they are not responding at all, the problem is long-term and the IP is stable. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know Shadowjams, I believe that policy on WP:AIV does insist on recent activity and warnings, but depending on who answers the report, they do often accept reports of long-term vandalism (I have submitted reports of a similar nature to AIV and they have been well-received). In any case, if you incorrectly file a report an editor will usually respond with a template giving advice on where it should be filed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my answer was a little confused/confusing there. AIV the place to report persistent / long-term vandals, but they do have to have made recent vandalising edits and have been appropriately warned. Depending on the severity of the vandal and/or the vandalism however, a level 4im (single) warning may be appropriate, and the user could be reported to AIV if they made subsequent edits following that warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request admin action against Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for creating an attack page about me, which he said he intended to post to mainspace.

He and I have been in a content dispute for several months at Christ myth theory, after I opposed its promotion to FA status and tried to help fix it in ways Eugene disagreed with. He recently arrived at an article I had rewritten, John Polkinghorne, and proceeded to make certain changes. We got into a content dispute; he violated 3RR; and I posted a report on the 3RR noticeboard, which was not acted on—see here.

A few hours later, Eugene created an article about me, now oversighted, in his userspace. It was written in the form of a Wikipedia article, and he said here on his talk page that he intended to post it to mainspace under the title "SlimVirgin". When he saw it had been deleted, he even asked another admin to undelete it for him. The article was written in a purportedly sympathetic tone about how I'd been cyberstalked, but it repeated the details of the stalking. He says it wasn't intended as an attack page, but it's hard to see how else to interpret it.

I feel this crossed a line and that some kind of action needs to be taken. Eugene is the pastor of an American Baptist church and relentlessly pushes what seems to be (in my view) a fundamentalist Christian POV. He regularly disparages sources he disagrees with—to the point of causing BLP problems—belittles editors who oppose him, and engages in serial reverting. He's definitely one of the most aggressive editors I've come across. There's a previous discussion here on AN/I about his comparing sources who argue Jesus may not have existed with Holocaust deniers.

If no action is taken about the attack page, he'll interpret it to mean that this degree of hostility is acceptable. I'd like to know whether there's community consensus to do something about it, and if so what. I kept a copy of the article, so I could email it to a couple of people to vouch for the contents, if that's needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on other behavior I'm concerned, but when you had that oversighted (as opposed to just deleted or hiding those revisions) you removed it from normal on-wiki review processes. There are only a handful of people who can comment on what was there now.

I am not comfortable with the idea of taking action for something I can't even see.

Are there non-oversighted edits which he's done which demonstrate the behavior problem pattern clearly?

If not, if someone who saw it pre-oversight feels that the material justified action that's fine, they can do so, but posting here for general review seems sort of hard without evidence to point to...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kept a copy, so I'll e-mail it to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pickle, isn't it? I can't imagine any scenario where a valid G10 and oversight would be- in any way- acceptable, but the fact that oversight was employed means all but a couple dozen are unable to say anything definite about this. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received. It's not a bright-line immediate-indef blockable attack page, but it's concerning and worthy following up on.

I'm asking Eugeueacurry some questions on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding has always been that creating a page like this about a fellow editor in response to a content dispute was indeed a bright-line issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if an oversighter felt the page justified that level of suppression... Bobby Tables (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know if it is justified if the reasons and evidence are not transparent (i.e., made, at least temporarily, public)? As someone once said, "Trust, but verify". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the policy is, but isn't it unfair to accuse someone of something without making the evidence public? I mean, not doing so seems like a secret trial. Am I wrong about this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Bill supports Eugene no matter what the latter says or does. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So an editor can't be blocked for creating an attack page unless the attack page is left in public view? Um- no- not at all. Deletion of attack pages is very sound policy, as is blocking editors who create them. --Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I have no problem with the deleting of attack pages. That IS a sound policy. My point is that if the "article" is not made public while deciding its merits, doesn't that put a question mark on the decision process? I mean, shouldn't the process be open in order to insure fairness? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying hard to imagine what could be on that page that would not be obvious harassment. I'm failing. The very act of creating an article about someone you're having a conflict with, and claiming you plan to put it in article space, is a prima facie attempt at intimidation, or at the very least baiting. It's gone, and he has said he won't be adding it again, so I suppose I won't block now, but IMHO this is the kind of shit we should be blocking people for, not using naughty words or making mistakes with a script. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the mere act of creating an 'article' about a user you're in a dispute with is disruptive and probably amounts to harassment. Do we need an interaction ban? In any case, any further harassment or personal attacks by Eugeneacurry on SlimVirgin should result in a substantial block. Fences&Windows 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on my talk page, I can honestly say that that I wrote that "article" without malice and with every intention of having it conform to Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. I intended to submit it to the Deletion Review folks (since the namespace had been salted) once it was finished, so I understood that it needed to be entirely above board. That said, it seems that three people who have actually read it found it problematic and I've agreed to let it go. Perhaps I was "too close" to the situation to see it for what it was; but I never meant it to be anything other than a good-faith high quality stub.

In any event, the admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block; so far the 3RR board haven't felt my actions at John Polkinghorne (where SlimVirgin also reverted pretty liberally) warrented blocking; SlimVirgin's attempt to raise the issues again here seems to be little more than forum shopping in an effort to silence my opposition to some of her edits at Christ myth theory. Still, like I've said, I'll not try again to write an article on her, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugene (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, a lot of people her have just pushed WP:AGF to its limit. If you want to continue editing here, then please do not create anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attacking somebody, regardless of whether that's your intent. Please try to work collaboratively with all editors, including SV and if you can't play nicely, stay away from each other. The best advice I can give you is the oft-ignored phrase "comment on content, not the contributor". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block -- I beg your pardon. I didn't feel it warranted an immediate block; your disingenuousness regarding your motivations makes me wonder if my judgment was a little off. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all being disingenuous; I've been exposed to SV through less than ideal circumstances, but the exposure prompted interest, the interest to an attempt at a wiki page. I don't see anything sinister about that. But like I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene is asking us to believe that of all the millions of topics out there he could have created a stub on, I was the most interesting thing he could think of, and it was a cooincidence that this occurred to him hours after I reported him for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even without having seen the page, I'm quickly becoming of the mindset that this might, indeed, be worth a block. --Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that wiki-drama that does not reach the point of major media coverage (we all know the main examples of this) is encyclopedic enough for inclusion is dubious, at best, which makes assuming good faith difficult. Kansan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that coverage in the New York Times and Slate was "major" enough. But as I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two pretty simple principles here. The first has to do with any-page-that-has-been-construed-as-an-attack-page. I see zero excuse for it at Wikipedia. Of course we create pages in which we documented the times we have been attacked, for use as evidence at ArbCom. But Curry is clearly talking about something else. The principle is simple: we should be here working on articles. Criticize articles, praise articles, edit articles. There is simply no need to descend into attacks against others. This is a no-brainer. The second issue is the oversight. You cannot blame SV for asking. If fault lies with anyone, it is with someone who has oversight powers using them improperly. I am concerned about blsming SV for someone else's actions. Sure, we can disagree over how she reacted. But the responsibility for any redacting or overlight lies with the person SV went to. WP depends on giving these powers to people of good judgment. If you want to question their judgment, fine, but direct your questioning at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused ... you're complaining about oversight of the page? We normally oversight things that invade editors' privacy. Slim was 100% correct to ask for it to be oversighted and whoever oversighted it was 100% correct to do so. Attempting to out your fellow editors is not an acceptable tool in a content dispute. In creating this page, Eugeneacurry showed that he is not able to edit cooperatively and I strongly feel a lengthy block or ban would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@B - no, I am not complaining against oversight. I am not complaining against anything. I am simply saying that Eugenecurry has no grounds to complain against SlimVirgin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you removed my comment Eugene? Removing a comment that suggests you be banned makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. --B (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, it was an unintentional mix-up stemming from an edit conflict. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked Eugenecurry for removing User B's post, which advocated a block, as alluded to above in the middle of a discussion regarding their lack of appreciation of the inappropriate responses they made in an earlier dispute with an editor. Any admin who feels that Eugenecurry has become sufficiently clued up as to the correct use of protocol and practice in these matters may unblock without reference to me. I would also urge parties not to allow this block to simply become fact, but to arrive at a consensus on how this matter may be resolved (which, of course, might include an indef block) with or without Eugenecurry's continued involvement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked under the "block people for the right reasons" banner. I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help the discussion if I described (in very broad non-attack terms) the nature of the article so that this conversation might be put in context. I mentioned SV edit count (sourced to a minor regional newspaper), her first name as she gave it in an interview with a reporter (sourced to that reporter's article in a minor regional lifestyle publication), her experience as a subject of cyberstalking--using the term "stalking"--(sourced to a major mainstream online publication), some of the coverage the stalking recieved in peri-Wikipedia venunes (sourced to a major national newspaper and a technical journal), two theories predicated on that stalking--neither of which were presented as flat facts and neither of which were intrinsically disreputable/negative--I thought they were sort of glamourous myself--or overly personal (sourced to the previously mentioned major mainstream online source and the lifestyle source), and SV's response to the situation in terms of founding a new organization (sourced to the lifestyle publication). I didn't include any information that hadn't already been covered by reliable sources, I didn't try to make SV look bad, I didn't editorialize. While the community thinks it was nevertheless inappropriate (would you feel the same way if I wasn't the one who wrote it and if it was about someone on some other Wiki-like project?) I hardly think it rises to the level of a vicious "attack" and I certainly don't think it merits blocking.

I realize that Wikipedia tends to err on the side of restraint and privacy regarding it's editors, but I felt that if other notable editors who recieved mainstream media coverage could have a Wikipedia article (e.g. Essjay, though I recongnize that Essjay is a more controversial figure), why not SlimVirgin Eugene (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough that you know that casual mentions are not evidence of notability. There is obviously nothing out there for writing a biography of her. Also, as Slim correctly pointed out, your revelation of this as a topic for an article occurring during a dispute with her is completely unbelievable. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to defend this. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my only defense on the notability point is that at least some of the sources (the lifestyle one and a couple others I didn't get a change to integrate into the body) focused largely on SV. As for the timing, you're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to believe that this is unrelated to your editing dispute. You don't appear to have been inspired to make articles about any editors with whom you are not in conflict. If I were in this situation- I came to believe that a person with whom I was in conflict was so important that an article about them must be written- I'd probably go to articles for creation and see if any neutral people wanted to take on the project, just to make sure that my own judgment wasn't clouded by our disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect you are obviously right. I should have just put in a request for an article and simply provided the links to the RSes. I had thought, foolishly it seems, that SlimVirgin might have been impressed by my fairness towards her in the article and realized that I'm not just a jerk opposing her in other article disputes for spite, that my concerns are substantive and not motivated by personalities. Could I still submit the sources and a request? Or would that only be construed as further evidence of my nefarious intentions?

As for my not writing an article on other editors (those on my "side" of disputes), I'm not aware that any of them are notable. But if you're aware of reliable sources covering Bill the Cat 7, I'd write the article this afternoon. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's utterly impossible to believe that this is unrelated to your long, bitter editing disputes. I'm not sure whether or not you can make a case for technically not violating some behavioral policy or guideline, but this has the stink of bad faith all over it. (Why you would do this while identifying yourself as a minister on your user page is shocking to me. You don't really need to sacrifice the second greatest commandment for the first. [39]) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your creation of the page a serious violation of WP:DISRUPTION, which I think is a good, catch-all policy for this kind of behavior. As I told you a while back on your user page, I really hoped you'd try to get along. And wouldn't the normal thing to do when creating an article about another editor be to contact that editor and, if told the editor didn't want an article, then to drop the idea unless there were some overriding need for it? I can't assume good faith enough to accept your explanation just above at 15:02. It doesn't look believable that you would create this without contacting her first. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the material was first deleted off my talk space I said that I would be willing to submit it to SlimVirgin for review prior to submitting it to the Deletion Review team. [40] When it became clear that SV wasn't pleased, I said that I'd drop it. [41] Eugene (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the good-faith way of doing it would be (1) get the idea to create an article of, at best, marginal notability; (2) contact the editor/subject with the idea, preferably in a private email; (3) procede further only if the editor is receptive to the idea. Especially with an editor you've had conflicts with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I am a little bit confused about your reverting LessHeardVanU. Are you simply asking that there be more discussion before Eugenecurry be indefinitely blocked? Or are you cateorically opposed to such a block? You wrote, "I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action" and I would appreciate it if you would amplify on this. I personally cannot think of a time when one editor created an article on another editor in the middle of an edit conflict. I personally see this as the worst kind of edit-warfare. I see no encyclopedic justification for this. How Eugenecurry could think that the world needs an encyclopedia article on Slim Virgin is frankly beyond me, but no matter how I look at it I just do not see any "good faith" spin on his doing so in the middle of an edit war. I see this as truly corrosive to the encyclopedia. I would like to restore LHVU's block but out of deferrence to you, would first ask for you to clarify whatever you think ought to be discussed first. What am I missing here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• LHVU blocked Eugene not for creating the page about SV, but for refactoring B's posting here advocating a block; except that Eugene didn't remove it - he got caught in the common "edit conflict glitch" where two editors post very close to each other and the second edit overrides the first, making it look like the second poster has deleted the first poster's edit. It happened to me recently, and when I posted at VPT, it turns out it's fairly common. So it was a good unblock. Having said that, I'd have blocked Eugene indef anyway for creating the attack page in the first place. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with that block. Clearly this is retaliation for SV's editing. AniMate 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above. His explanation that it was an accidental removal seems fine. He should clearly be indefinitely blocked, not for the accidental removal, but because he has clearly demonstrated he cannot edit cooperatively. --B (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a number of people are advocating an indefinite block. What precisely is the intended purpose of such an action? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent the disruption and genuine human distress which your presence seems to have caused and have the potential to continue to cause. FWIW, I support an indefinite block. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV has emailed me a copy of the text, and I agree with George that it isn't blatantly an attack. But Eugene is not some juvenile, either, he can argue very intelligently at Talk:Christ myth theory and he's smart enough not to produce something simple, so I think he knew he was doing something harmful to another editor. He says now that he wouldn't do it again. George used the word "concerning". I'd say I'm concerned about him, too. Some of his comments early in this discussion indicate he doesn't quite understand just how bad this is. I hate to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm not familiar with past practices, so I'm fine with following whatever the common practices have been in situations with this kind of a less-blatant attack page. At the very least, he should get some kind of block, in part so that the fact he wrote an attack page is on the block record. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanations, and retract my question for Jpgordon. I agree that refactoring a post is not an acceptable reason for an indefinite block (although if this occured at a much earlier stage in this conflict, a 24-hr. block might have sent a much needed message). I have just blocked Eugenecurry indefinitely because i think it is a disgrace to use a wikipedia article as a means of pursuing a conflict against an editor. The minimum integrity of the project as a whole is based on the idea that we create encyclopedia articles in good faith. Eugenecurry has demonstrated the worst kind of faith that perverts the encyclopedia by using it against itself. I further note that this occured after a very long period of edit-warring and what appears to be some degree of stalking. I see that diferent editors have tried to impress upon Eugenecurrie the importance of working within the spirit of our core policies and he has chosen to edit-war instead. I think there has been a healthy discussion here, with the participation of a wide range of editors, who express support for this indef. block. I trust this one will stick and if any other admin. questions my act I would be glad to discuss it further. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear -- refactoring a post might or might not be an acceptable reason for a block, but since Eugenecurry didn't refactor a post, but instead encountered an annoying bug, that block was just incorrect. I agree with your block here; he doesn't get it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse. Eugenecurry's actions were so far beyond the pale of acceptability this is the only response. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse block. For reasons already stated articulately above. The circumstances/timing here are telling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I've seen a copy of the deleted content and, although it's not really an attack (SV is a [insert profanity of your choice]) type thing, it's not the kind of thing one would write in good faith. I think Eugene has been disingenuous in this thread and generally wasted a lot of time and proved to be a very aggressive editor and I think this block is a necessity, at least for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to Slrubenstein (and Jpgordon) I indef blocked because of what appeared to be the refactoring of another editors comment, which was proposing a block/ban, during a discussion regarding that same editors extremely poor response to an earlier editor dispute. While I am content with the unblock on the basis of a glitch making it appear that the editor removed content deliberately when they did not, I would point out that I didn't make the sanction upon that incident in isolation - and that I noted specifically that they might be unblocked once it was clear the editor would not make further similar edits (which, since they did not in the second place, meant they could be unblocked promptly). Indefinite is just that, any time period between "how fast can I hit the unblock button" and "forever" and only for as long as it is deemed appropriate. Of course, next time you could ask... Oh, and, yes, good block by Slr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after thinking this over while cooking dinner, I'm becoming more of the mind that a full community ban might be in order here. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a new account create a 'sock' and then immediately start deleting a new article Blackburn Lake Primary School. All reverted.

Special:Log/newusers 00:34, 19 June 2010 Ultimatemoocow (talk | contribs) created new account User:Ultimatemoocow1 (talk | contribs)

I warned the 'Sockmaster' Ultimatemoocow (talk · contribs). Suggest indef. block the Ultimatemoocow1 (talk · contribs) account at least? -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 01:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original account never seems to have made any edits on-wiki. Having two accounts isn't in and of itself a problem - it's only when you hide that fact or edit in ways that makes it look like the two are separate and reinforcing each other. Having a prior account you never edited with isn't a problem, and given the names here it's not clear anyone could possibly mistake this for anything other than a identified second account...

It's not clear to me that it actually requires intervention at this point, though it's somewhat silly and bears some ongoing review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I have already pointed out what you said to Ultimatemoocow (talk · contribs). I may have been a bit too terse and scared them off, though I did ask them to make constructive edits in future. --2 20.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just gave Ultimatemoocow1 a once and only warning for their edits- and I was very close to just blocking as a vandalism-only-account, but since they removed the mess they made (though not restoring the content deleted) I decided to give another chance.. but if someone else wants to block, feel free. --Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Courcelles. What annoys me is I've probably lost an hour chasing 'cows'. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, per the user creation log they're definitely the same user. --Courcelles (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a kid from the school having fun. School articles tend to attract that sort of vandalism. Shimeru 02:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I reported User:Active Banana on WP:AN3 for edit warring, the I received the following reply from User:Groink.

48 hour ban isn't going to do a thing. 48 day ban isn't going to help either. I've been monitoring this from the outside, and I have to side with Active Banana on this issue. Most of you may not realize this, but many articles related to Korean popular culture has a way of being filled with a lot of unsourced information - most of it by IP anons. Take a look at the Korean wave article for example. These articles are filled with Korean nationalism! It's simple to post uncited information on these articles, and then leave them sitting for MONTHS without any citations. And yet, the thousands of readers coming across these articles will take these uncited information as the truth. It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information. I for one, as well as many other editors are against this form of editing, as I refer to myself as a Deletionist as well as an Exclusionist. These editing philosophies believe that information should be added to the article ONLY when the information has been cited at the time of the addition to the article. Taric25 does not understand that it is not the deleting editor's job to find the source. As Active Banana has pointed out several times in the Rain talk page, it is the responsibility of the adding editor to cite the information as it is entered. I repeat - the longer the uncited information stays on-line within Wikipedia, the better chance in the information becoming a falsified fact. Groink (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I would like you to withdraw your statement, “It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information.” I spent my time on the article un-deleting all the unsourced information that Active Banana removed from the article and replaced all of it with sourced information. I have never once advocated for adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia, so again, I would like you to withdraw that statement, because I explained to Active Banana in this article that it is better replace unsourced good-faith edits with sourced information like I did here, instead of removing good-faith edits like Active Banana did here. I myself have created or worked on Biographies of Living People for a while, like the article I created for Miss Foozie, and as you can see, I am no stranger to making sure all the information I add is sourced.

Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity!

In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page, so I ran http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? Taric25 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, constructing an entire sentence describing the process of removing one character - yeah, that's productive alright. Yup. Look at the history page for this VERY talk page - you're in the minority, I'm in the majority. I stand behind what I've said before - as long as those uncited awards stay where they are, you didn't fix anything! I recommend adding <!-- --> around all the uncited awards, and let the other editors find the sources - while at the same time avoid them being seen by readers. My overall beef is about readers who believe everything they read from a major web site. Groink (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ) */ This edit summary intentionally describes absolutely nothing about the edit I just made.") I do not appreciate your sarcasm. Please apologize. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC

The user did not comment again, and I left {{uw-npa1}} for the editor’s inappropriate use of edit summaries and sarcasm. The editor replied.

Dude, YOU attacked me first about the summary BS. You made a comment on what I said earlier, and that's all good. But then you just had to find it in yourself to crank it up one notch by throwing in my 30-percent comment rate, which wasn't even on-topic with the edit warring. The edit warring is all about editing philosophies, and I made the comparison between you and I/Anna Banana. But, you just HAD to dig up something totally irrelevant to the argument just to piss me off. That, dude, is not cool. My sarcasm for your previous sarcasm is therefore justified. We're even! The end. Groink (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left {{uw-npa2}} for the use of foul language, and I saw the editor had started an attack page in the userspace. (I will not quote attack pages, but here is the history). I removed the section per WP:CSD#G10 and left {{Attack}} on the talk page. The user reverted, so I removed the section again and left {{uw-npa4}} on the talk page. The user reverted again. Taric25 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section was in poor taste, at least. I reverted to your version, with a note in the edit summary pointing to WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?, where that sort of thing is explicitly mentioned. Shimeru 02:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anom user, blocked as User:83.38.89.212 on 16 June 2010 by user:Prolog for 1 week for continued unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory[42], is back and editing as User:83.36.226.22.[43], [44] This editor is already blocked at least five times for promoting fringe theory and edit warring, however, as a dynamic IP he/she continues its disruptive behavior. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor now breaks again also WP:3RR. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:83.38.89.212 continues the above noted disruptive behavior still. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a request from Academic2005 on my talk page to contact someone about help removing logs from Google. I thought I'd post it here, as I know little about how to help Academic2005. Jolly Ω Janner 12:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My page was deleted several times upon my request yet my name still appears and is thus listed in the Google index. I would like my name and the deletion log to be fully suppressed at that point in order that no information appears anymore on Wikipedia and Google. Please provide me with with advice or help me contact the appropriate Wikipedia person if you cannot do anything, it has been months that my name appears on Wikipedia and Google and I do not know what to do. I have sent removal request to Google already and they deny them saying that my name was kept on Wikipedia and therefore cannot be removed. Thank you very much for your assistance, regards. Academic2005 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Question does your name come up for anything other than by searching "Academic2005" or "Academic2005 Wikipedia"? I got nothing Wikipedia-related on the first page of the first term and in fact the second term also yields nothing relating to you. Also, is there a particular issue with this? Wikipedia accounts are created with the understanding that your edits are visible on the internet, you are encouraged to hide personal information, but if you googled your real name you would find all your social-networking sites and everything. Is there a special reason why your username is so vulnerable? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the user created a page related to him/herself (I don't know the name of it) and that it was deleted. Google can take a while to update itself to deletions, so when you type the name of that article in, Google still probably has some of its (personal) content previewed on the search page. As I say... this is just what I think. Jolly Ω Janner 12:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the editor previously had an article about themselves speedied on three occasions, the most recent by Floquenbeam. However, Google is still indexing the now deleted page, so a Google search on the editor's name is bringing up Wikipedia as the first hit, even thought the content (both in Google's cache and here) is a summary of the deletion log and the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" message. However, an admin would have to confirm whether or not that's the case, as naturally I can't see Academic2005's deleted edits, so I'm just guessing as to what the page was. :) I would have expected that the "does not have an article" pages was set not to be indexed by Google, but perhaps not. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The google cache article holds the last created article, which was an attempt to prevent caching (The page tried to add NOINDEX and NOFOLLOW). There is little we can do about it, as the page is deleted on Wikipedia. Until Google refreshes its cache it will likely stay there, pointing to the now-deleted page. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for the real name, and did get the Wikipedia deletion log as an early hit. Would it help if she stopped creating new articles with that title? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have told him that Google will purge itself and loose the search result for the article itself, as for the deletion log that is unfortunately, tough. If he didn't want the name on the internet he shouldn't have created the article. As for his username, I see nothing that relates to his personal information in it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I understand, Bilby has it right. If you search for the name of the person the article is about, Google sends you to the deletion log. The deletion log has no mention of Academic2005's account, so I'm not sure what the problem is; perhaps it's annoying to the subject that there's evidence a page was ever created? The latest version I speedied just had the content "<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW">"; I deleted it because I'm pretty confident that won't help get the article out of Google's cache. I believe Google has a process for people to remove articles from their cache; I'll see if I can find it again. But this isn't something we can solve on this end. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that S@bre has not been "striving to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editor", to quote WP:ADMIN. The issue concerns this edit - [45]. The claim that "Between the bases there is a neutral space" was contested by Findstr, a new user. S@bre's comments, from my point of view, neither adequately support his claim that the statement is substantiated by the source given nor demonstrate the attitude administrators should have concerning new editors (see WP:BITE). They can be found at User talk:Findstr#Re:TF2, and I'll quote the last two comments in full:

"Because its not false information: its simply information that isn't universally applicable anymore. The source and the point in the article are contemporary to the game's release. At that time, pretty much all but a few maps conformed to that design philosophy. Most still do. In three years since the source was past, things have changed via the updates, but all those original maps where it is applicable are still there; thus it merely needs clarification in the wording, not removal: I've just provided you with an alternate way of phrasing that information. And honestly, trying to prove that Valve employees talking about how they made the game are unreliable sources (based on your own original research of their work no less) is completely absurd. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got better things to do than to argue over one sentence in an article, especially if you're going to become self-righteous and start contextless comparisons with 400 year old sources. I'm sure you have better things to do as well. The source's claim of "The maps are usually made up of two enemy bases separated by a neutral space" is accurate; it doesn't, as you implicate, say "every map has a neutral space". I've made a change to the wording to reflect this, but at this point, I don't care if it satisfies you or not. I'm sorry this has become adversarial, but I just can't be bothered with this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)"

These do not reflect well on the editor's commitment to WP:AGF, especially due to the generally civil nature of Findstr's comments (since removed from S@bre's talk page, but which can be read at [46]). It also seems from S@bre's minor "tweaking" of the page - [47] that Findstr's point was actually perfectly sound. I'm bringing this here because Findstr brought this up at WP:HELP, and I felt obliged to take it to the appropriate forum. Claritas § 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy and paste what I left at the help desk a couple of minutes ago. If I have acted incorrectly regarding this whole OR thing, then I apologise. I certainly apologise for my behaviour in this case, looking over my last comment in particular, it wasn't acceptable or becoming of my position as an admin; its no excuse, but its been a long week. However, I had indicated to the user that I wished to disengage from this issue, primarily because, as Findstr noted himself, it was getting me worked up. Removing messages from my own talk page, last time I checked, was allowed and given that it can easily be retrieved from the page history, and should not be taken as "pretending the conversation never took place". You're welcome to debate my edits and change the article if I am at fault here, please don't involve me with the content dispute part of this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of messages from your talk page wasn't itself at fault at all. I merely noted this in my comment in case people looked for Findstr's comments on your talk page. Regards. Claritas § 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will paste what I wrote on the help desk (sorry that that wasn't the right place, didn't know about this).

I recently edited the TF2 article to add some content, and to change some existing content as it was no longer factually accurate. I did remove some content too by mistake -- I did not realise that the reference at the end of the paragraph contained multiple pages. Anyway, I got into a discussion with an administrator called Sabre about the removal of content and the subsequent reversion of some of my changes -- whilst I accept that I made a mistake in removing some content as mentioned earlier, even editing it was not an option since there was no newer source to verify a change in the article content.

The strange (and seemingly hypocritical) thing is that I was told to make sure that my edits conformed to WP:OR. Fine, even globally demonstrable data is not a verifiable reference for content, that's fine. What I find strange is that the same administrator who had told me not to add my own original synthesis in has now done it for me (see the lastest edit on the Team Fortress 2 page).

What sort of double-standard is this that I am told that if a source is out of date it does not matter, but the administrator in question is not questioned when doing the same thing I wished to do? I fail to see why his original research should be considered 'verifiable' whilst mine is considered unreliable and unverifiable. I find it demeaning that I am to be cautioned like a child and be told by the aforementioned that we are 'adversaries' merely for me asking a question to an administrator (who I thought would be kind enough to answer my questions, but I guess I was wrong about that), only to have the administrator who cautioned me himself edit the article in the way he told me that I could not, not to mention that when I asked about his double standards he decided to merely pretend like the conversation never happened by removing the conversation from his talk page.

I find this a rather disturbing revelation in an encyclopedia that I use often. What is going on here? Findstr (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been uncivil, I have only expressed a desire to understand what I have done wrong, and how I can help. If this is what Wikipedia is like, I guess it is not the place for me. Findstr (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, I might add to Sabre that being allowed to do something does not mean that it is a good thing to do. I find it rude that instead of trying to help out you shut me out and act like I am merely an aggrivation. I'm trying to help, but you're not exactly helping. Findstr (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't appear ripe for ANI. Why wasn't this discussed with Sabre at their talk page first? –xeno^talk 15:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this here per WP:GBU, on behalf of Findstr, because he and s@bre could not reach an agreement concerning s@bre's actions. I thought that it would be better to have a discussion with a wider audience than a private discussion between myself and s@bre as I was originally uninvolved with this issue. Apologies if this was inappropriate. Claritas § 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. –xeno^talk 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User_talk:JzG

Hi, I am unable to contact User:JzG as their page is semi-protected. I am attempting to ask them to explain their decision to delete a page I began called Radio23. The stated reason was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Experimentation, freedom of expression and a DIY approach to broadcasting are among the station's distinguishing traits. The ethos is to empower people to do their own show free from censorship..."

I whole-heartedly dispute that this article was in any way advertising or promotion, and I fail to see how freedom of expression or freedom from censorship are a bad thing. Radio23 is a valid internet radio station strongly linked to Scannerfm and WFMU, both of which have valid and long standing wiki-pages. I am attempting to follow proper protocol in asking the user to explain their decision before disputing, but am unable to do so because ofn their talk pages' semi-protected status. Please advise. Aspland11 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Notified user. –xeno^talk 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty promotional. I am willing to restore the article to a user sub-page on three conditions: 1. you edit the article so that it is neutral and avoids partisan praise of this station. See Wikipedia:Words to watch. 2. You write the article using reliable sources. 3. You check with me before moving it back to articlespace. Fences&Windows 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an article in a user subpage be alright, even if it was not neutral or had no reliable sources, as long as there are

1. No BLP attacks,
2. No copyright issues, and
3. No movement back into article space until article issues are fixed?

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Abd r Raheem al Haq is destroying the Qur'an alone by claiming that Quranists DO accept some hadith which is false as you can see from the edit summary and edit here. This notion is absolutely false and i have complained about him 4 days ago as well here.

You dont have to be familiar with this topic, you only need to look at the title of this group. Quran ALONE. What does 'alone' mean? The very purpose of this group is hostility against hadith. Abd r raheems claim is the same as saying an anti-semetic group loves jews.

Do you see my point? I have warned him already, and so have others, so i hope a warning or a temporary block is in order. His false edits are persistent and some of us don't have the time to clean up after him all the time. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or sign their posts ;) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This revision appears to use this page as its reference for the contentious area of the article, whereas Abd r Raheem al Haq's version does not contain a reference (though this alone is not unequivocal proof of wrong-doing). Is that site a reliable source? I can't work out who has written it. A better one could surely be found, a printed one. For example. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise when the article states that that page is a suitable, unbiased source, it is referencing itself. Toyota claim on their page to produce the best cars but that doesn't make it so. I will remove the section as an attempt to promote the use of that source in the article as acceptable. And I will move this to the content dispute page and remind all users to take care when chucking around accusations of vandalism. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this resolved at all to be fair. Given that I've not even been asked to respond to the accusations made about me. If you look at Bazm-e-Tolu-e-Islam, within the article itself, it correctly states that Tolu-e-Islam do use hadith and are not anti-hadith as Iwanttoeditthissh wants to have the article imply. The defining characteristic that sets a Quranist apart from the orthodox Muslim is their rejection of the need to interpret the Quran by reference to the Hadith. Some Quranists. like myself, reject the Hadith outright, that's true, but many do not. Many accept the authenticity of the Hadith, I don't know why, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia. Iwanttoeditthissh has a some familiarity with one particular strand of Quranist Islam, the somewhat fringe 19ers, and tries to present the article from their point of view. He makes offensive comments on my talk page and pretty much everywhere else.

The article now has that link restored, so we're now, once again, stuck with the virtually incoherent;

Quranists do not necessarily reject the authenticity of all hadiths, however, they never accept the authority of such hadiths, asserting that the Quran is sufficient and as such should solely be used.

The English is appalling or plain wrong, hadith is a plural, "He knew many hadith.", there is no 'hadiths', but without being pedantic, there is still the fact that at no point does the document cited actually make anything resembling the claim we've derived this horrid English from. It is in fact the preface to The Message, A Translation of the Glorious Qur`an, hosted by free-minds.org. It is a link to a Quranist, English translation of the Quran, it is not even a citation. I will take the liberty of reverting this hasty edit. I'll be happy to see it improved, but to just delete my improvements without even giving me a day to respond is unacceptable. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys and girls. I've been reviewing the article: Fight for This Love trying to get it to GA. Someone has deleted the image: File:Cheryl-crow-fight-for-this-love-500x279.jpg which was part of the music video section. Now I didn't upload the image but it would have been nice (and polite) if however had deleted the image to inform me so that I could try and rectify the situation. Its obvious from the talk page and revision history that I am carrying out the changes required for GA so it shouldn't have been too difficult to work out.

I would appreciate if someone could find out why the image was deleted and let me know please. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was tagged, and subsequently deleted, by the same user; their rationale was: "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." –xeno^talk 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. But i actually disagree with the deletion of the image. I am aware that many articles use snapshots from music videos to explain the concept of song. And i actually though the image used was appropriate. Could somneone please review the deletion because I want to request the restoring of the image. I think it was unfairly deleted. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very rare that a music video screenshot passes our non-free image criteria. Criteria 8, as stated here, is the usual one. You've got to remember that the article is about the song, and so unless the screenshot significantly increases the reader's knowledge of the song, not the video, then it fails this criteria. This one certainly did, and if the article had got to GA review stage, it would have almost certainly been removed at that point. I've also removed two further non-free images from the article because they similarly fail our criteria, being either replaceable and/or failing criteria 8. You do realise that an article doesn't have to have pretty pictures to pass GA, don't you? - in fact using images that are against Wikipedia's mission is more likely to make it fail... Black Kite (t) (c) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Black Kite's take on this matter. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey in this case i'm guided by the GA review. My GA reviewer asked for images to be input into the article stating that irt was more appropriate for GA nominees to have images. But thank you for the explaination. If the general practise is not to include them then I won't argue. I completely understand. Its a shame that not all articles are treated equally. There are many that have such images and i guess its hard to enforce. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, having images is not a requirement for good articles (though I believe is for featured articles). –MuZemike 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like the deletion formally reviewed, you can file at Wikipedia:Deletion review. –xeno^talk 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have great respect for Fastily and Xeno, and where the two agree as to the consensus view on wikipedia, you can expect it to be as they say. That said, I don't agree with the consensus view, and question whether most U.S. intellectual property lawyers with, say, a decade or two of experience, would share it. But that having been said, unless the consensus is changed, our mandate is to follow consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page at Talk:Frances Farmer, this user has persistently reformatted the title of a sub-section which was posted to address a claim the editor made that was false. Throughout the discussion on that page, User:Fragma08 has also persistently claimed that the 3 editors responding were incivil and were making personal attacks, where in fact the opposite was true. He was blocked twice for comments he made on that page, including once here for posting "You clearly have psychological issues." while parroting back a post I made, in what appeared a mocking manner. That block was for 24 hours. He came back and the very first edit he made to the talk page removed the section title and his post included a personal attack on one of the other editors here where he said "your obsession with me/my username now forming parts of titles (?) relating to a discussion on Farmer already covered above is disturbing and unhealthy". The editor simply addressed a post to the user. He was again blocked for his attack [48], this time for 72 hours. The reformat was reverted. The first post he made when he returned from his second block was to reformat the section title again, saying "Be neutral and this discussion has already been covered above. No need to create new titles to single out or excessive linking to editors. This is a talkpage, not ANI or personal talkpages." The discussion in that section regarded a post he made, there is no non-neutrality, no new titles were created in response to his conduct, although it was about a claim he made. It was reverted. He once again changed the section title, claiming "Again, this discussion is already covered above, so stop with additional titles to single out/link to editors. The talkpage is for the article and must be neutral in content and heading. Stop reverting." I was unaware that pointing out a false statement was singling anyone out unnecessarily, or that stating it was false is non-neutral. The conduct of this editor during "neutral discussion" has been completely outrageous and refactoring someone else's post is a continuation of that. He is also quite contentious in his edit summaries when removing warning templates from his talk page: This one for not assuming good faith was just removed, this one was in regard to the personal attack for which he was blocked the first time, he removed it saying "removed nonsense warning tag from incivil Wildhartlivie - Not welcome on my talk page. Stay out!", and this one regarded his refactoring talk page posts as I've reported above, was removed with the edit summary of "removing crap". He comments to an administrator here, when invited to appeal to get the block overturned, stating "No point, as I realize, some users are protected and have a carte blanche to act anyway they like including breach of established policies. I naively assumed policies applied to all without bias." and in the edit summary said "Pointless in face of clear bias and discrimination in appl. WP". The conduct of this editor is untenable and contentious. It clearly deteriorated with each post to the Farmer talk page and has carried onward. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that you can remove edit warnings since it implies that you have read them but I'm unsure about block notice removal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OWNTALK:

"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."

I believe that means the block template (a warning/notification) can be removed, and such removal is evidence of the user understanding the block. N419BH 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint isn't about his removing things from his talk page, although the way in which he has done it carries over from his conduct on the article talk page. I posted the diffs and edit summaries to illustrate the conduct of this user. My complaint is that he keeps changing a subheading on Talk:Frances Farmer, which he came back from two blocks in a row to reformat. His conduct has been atrocious, though, and no one "changed" the article talk page post except Fragma08, where he is apparently trying to hide his misconduct by changing the subtitle. He's done this repeatedly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Note: The following section was moved from Wikiquette regarding this subject, and contains the bulk of the report and discussion. I have therefore collapsed the note here left afterwards, which was originally just a note redirecting to the below discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Personal Attacks by Nineteen Nightmares

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) has continually engaged in a pattern of personal attacks, incivility and disruptive editing despite repeated requests, warnings, and a block. Examples are:

• Unsubstantiated claim here, stating "GregJackP, would you please disclose your obvious connection to the subject. I seriously have my suspicions that you are actually the subject of this aricle, right back in here in some devious way strongly trying to keep and manipulate the data in the piece." He also asked Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch of basically the same thing, here.
• Unsubstantiated claim (diff here) that GregJackP and Minor4th are sock/meat puppets of Dmartinaus. Note that GregJackP initiated an SPI of Dmartinaus that resulted in his being blocked for two weeks and 4 of his socks being indefinately blocked, which is hardly the actions of another sock/meat puppet. Note that a checkuser was conducted in regards to the SPI and the investigation is located here. The checkuser did not find any relationship between either GregJackP or Minor4th and Dmartinaus.

Comment The socks of Martin have variously voted 'delete' and changed their minds and done lots of stuff that would not be in keeping with a legitimate separate editor. Because you nommed Martin as a sock, it doesn't mean you aren't friends with the guy. I see you didn't answer any of the questions. Do you know this man personally? Your comments and behavior suggest a strong WP:COI but you remain silent on this front, instead reverting to reporting me for asking serious questions about an article that has been an incredible adventure to unravel. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Incivility by changing section heading to "Lies and Skullduggery" here.
• Personal attack on Dmartinaus here, stating that Martin "You brought this whole thing on and behaved like an idiot." There is simply no call for this type of attack on a currently banned user.
• Unsubstantiated statement that "FYI, GregJackP is a liar" located here.
• Personal attack on JNW here stating " I removed the templates at first BECAUSE I WAS NEW AND DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER, YOU MORON!
• Personal attack and threats left on Dmartinaus's userpage: diff. I understand the frustration with this user but this type of behaviour is completely unacceptable per WP:NPA and WP:THREAT GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal attack left with this edit, I removed the part which was a clear personal attack here, and reinstated without modifying the tone here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has been appropriately warned about his conduct, as shown below:

• Comments about inappropriate personal attacks here by Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch.
• Comment on tone of this edit by Daniel Case here.
• Warned on personal attacks here by GregJackP.
• Warned for vandalism (disruptive editing) here by GregJackP.
• Comment and warning for disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks, advised of her intent to block if it continued, here by Sarah.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Minor4th.
• Comment on incivility here by Pdcook.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Technopat.
• Warned for personal attacks here by Modernist.

• I have recently npa-warned this user up to a final warning level according to the most recent comments I mentioned above: [49] [50] [51]. The warnings were disregarded and removed (the final warning hasn't been removed yet, as of when I last checked) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous actions/investigations:

• Blocked for disruptive editing (24 hrs) here, request to lift block declined. This was from a report to AIV.
• ANI for "continued incivility and personal attacks" located here.

It is apparent that anyone that disagrees with Nineteen Nightmares becomes the target of his attacks, and that this is a long term pattern of abusive behavior. I also don't think that it is necessarily appropriate for him to leave messages for Jimbo, but I'm also sure that Jimbo can handle that himself. GregJackP (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I fully support this notice by GregJackP, as I have been the target of repeated attacks and accusations by NineteenNightmares. Even in the few minutes since this notice was posted, NighteenNightmares has made another personal attack [52] on myself, GregJackP and Giftiger, requesting a checkuser because he thinks we are socks of Dmartinaus (a checkuser was already performed which resulted in blocks of Dmartinaus and 4 or 5 of his socks). The instances of uncivility, personal attacks, and disruptive edits are literally too numerous to list. A review of NineteenNightmare's contributions and his talk page will tell the tale. I support whatever actions can be taken to remedy this problem behavior. Minor4th (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You will just try anything, huh? My questions are just that, questions. I questioned the idea that there were socks in the Martin piece and by golly, there were socks in the Martin piece! However, I am not making any accusations against anyone unless I see a pattern of behavior that mimics the subject and behavior of his socks. Incidentally, you are the individual who got me banned for a day by lying to a supervising editor. I have never done anything here but try and improve the site and constantly people such as yourself are doing this type of thing, which in effect wastes everyone's time. I believe you are closely connected to Mr. Martin and are trying to get me banned again so you can quell any kind of criticism of the piece, which obviously I have been the most vocal about here on Wiki.

To reviewing supervisors and editors, please note that the majority of "evidence" being presented here is from my first few days and I had no idea how the site worked as an editor. I admit being harsh at first, but the criticisms against my endeavors were continually hostile (and against Wiki policy of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith) and in effect curbed my ability to focus on editing, which is why I created an account after being a reader for many years. If you will look at my comments, editing and so forth, from the time of my one day ban until now, you will see that I have been at all times civil, but that does not preclude voicing my suspicions about possible misbehavior on the part of others. I smelled the socks before anyone else and I still smell them. I am not going to remain silent about it. I would be glad to be wrong as the article that is the focus of all the contention is a personal bio from a marginal individual with little to no notability. It is quite obvious to me that this report is just another attempt to get me banned so GregJackP wont have to address the inherent problems in the article itself. I suspect GregJackP of actually being a sock or meatpuppet of the subject of the article, Donald G. Martin, and respectfully request a checkuser on him to preclude the possibility that he is a sock or more likely a meat puppet, or friend of Martin's, judging from his comments and familiarity with the individual. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Comment - I was initially involved with this issue and started the first AN/I thread. After a review what has transpired over the past couple of months (I haven't paid much attention to it), I must say that I am terribly disappointed in Nineteen Nightmare's behavior. I felt like NN learned from the AN/I that no one was out to get him and that no one had any personal problems with Valley Entertainment Monthly. The article was userfied in order for NN to find additional sources that demonstrated notability, a guideline I thought NN had taken the time to understand. But faced with another AfD in which additional editors thought the article still failed to demonstrate notability, NN has become hostile again. What good does it do accusing editors acting in good faith of sock/meatpuppetry or saying that others are behaving like idiots? These are continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Is a longer block (one week) necessary so that NN can take some time to review these and other salient policies? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would address the antagonistic behavior being directed at me, I would not be so ticked off about all this nonsense. Please let's make this clear that all this stuff has been a tempest in a teacup and amounts to attempts to silence me, so the Martin piece can be restored and we can all read about his land developments and lawsuits. Yeah, I'm feeling pretty sarcastic right now and sorry to disappoint you because you have been a good guy and I always appreciate your feedback. I will try and cool the rhetoric, but how about someone address my concerns in the AfD for Valley Entertainment Monthly? They have all been very vocal about what they think it wrong, but two solid refs are all the site demands in the first place for notability and the article has them. We're supposed to be concerned with content but no one answers my serious concerns and instead continues to make these kinds of reports. It is fairly apparent, isn't it, that they are just playing an "us and them" game? Personally, I am disgusted by it, Wikipedia should stop it, and if you ban me, then you can expect that article to have no one to actually make sure it doesn't end up selling the man's real estate for him again, and again, for free. So, you see my concerns are about content, but they remain unanswered. If these people were genuinely interested in following Wiki standards, they would offer advice on what is wrong, not attempt to tag and delete everything they find, then report me when I voice an objection because they don't like my arguments or perhaps the words I use. I don't consider any of my suspicions to be unfounded. They are based on patterns, just like when I suspected socks and said so early on. In fact, GregJackP got me banned the first time by lying about my behavior and the suspending editor never bothered to get my side of it, which was another punitive annoyance. I really can't understand how Wiki can even operate under such conditions and I hope this kind of thing changes so an editor could actually get some work done here without other's taking manipulative potshots. If you do not understand this, and still think I am just spouting off for no reason, I guess there's no more to say. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Support. Exhaustive and exhausting advocate of a non-notable subject. A far more effective case could have been made just by finding a few solid sources, and removing all the fluff. Communications have been contentiousness, with accusations and insults; user can't abide by not getting their way, and reacts by creating WP:WIKIDRAMA on multiple fronts. In addition to edits noted above, early on on there was this message [53], which struck me as unusual for accusing me of not understanding the guidelines, given the continued self-description as a newbie editor. Contentious from the start [54], [55], [56]. JNW (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, my fellow Wikipedians, but - What are you actually supporting here? Someone propose action, and we might be able to agree/disagree!  Chzz  ►  19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point -- I did not know what the culmination of a Wikiquette notice was, so I was expressing my support for whatever actions could be taken to remedy the problem behavior. I will look at the proposals below. Thanks. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposal

Proposal: Since an actual proposal hasn't been given above, despite the numerous "supports", I thought I would specify one here for discussion. I propose that the user User:Nineteen Nightmares be blocked from editing for a period of 3 months or so (which I think it appropriate given his history and his continued behaviour), and would also recommend an indefinite topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Note to reviewers: Please be aware that 19Nightmares does not have an extensive block history and has only been blocked once and for 24 hours. Also note that at least half-a-dozen editors voting below are heavily involved in the underlying dispute with this user. Sarah 01:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. GregJackP (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, rationale above. JNW (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Support I would ask any supervising editor who reviews this to understand that several of the people who have signed it are on one side of a contentious DVR while I am on the other. The motivation here appears to be to silence me completely through a ban as the article they are arguing for is a vanity piece and I am the primary person who has been shouting about it for two weeks until if finally got some attention and was deleted. In addition, I am only here to enjoy and help to improve Wikipedia when I can. All the other stuff is fluff, and these editors have constantly gadflied me with nonsensical approaches to dealing with the controversy instead of having a civil, intelligent discussion in the first place. In other words, this whole block proposal is simply an attempt to quiet legitimate criticism. Yes, I have gotten irritated by this behavior and made some sarcastic remarks. I believe anyone who is under constant attack from a group of experienced editors and who himself is new to Wikipedia would probably have the same reaction. Basically, I'm still trying to come up to speed on how the site operates but from what I've seen so far, it is hard to understand how any article ever reaches concensus opinion with all the passive aggressive behavior on the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment - I have been referred to this WQA by one of the users supporting the block. After having been one of the first users to comment on Nineteen Nightmares' "uncivil behaviour" |here I have been occupied elsewhere and frankly have neither the time nor interest to go through the huge amount of exchanges between the several users involved in this, and related, issues. One thing, however, that does worry me following a random skim through some of the links provided above by the supporters of the block is their seemingly one-sided presentation of the issues at stake. No mention is made, or if there is, I missed it and am willing to stand corrected, of the exchanges at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs), for instance, which have directly or indirectly led to this WQA. My gut-feeling - a luxury afforded me by not having any interest whatsoever of acquiring admin responsibilities in the future - is to bind all the editors involved into committing themselves to not edit any page previously edited by any of the others, except possibly to revert blatant vandalism by third parties. This formula seems to have worked well in other similar situations I have come across. Good luck to the admins who have to take the decisions on this and many other ones. --Technopat (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That actually sounds like a great idea. I see no reason for me to edit a page if there isn't someone there trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal sales platform, which is how I see this article. There would also be no need for a ban against me and the rules state a ban is supposed to be preventative and not punitive anyway. So, with that being said, if we can close this article discussion or reach some conclusion, I have nothing more to say about it. My only intent ever was to protect Wikipedia from this type of misuse of the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

The problem I have with this is that this would result in four or more editors not being able to make constructive arguments to the AfD review discussion as a result of one user's abusive attempts to defame us. I expect that this is exactly what Nightmares is aiming for, which is why he is such a vehement supporter of this suggestion. In any case, it'd completely disrupt process on the review, and the AfD itself already saw enough disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Giftiger and would not voluntarily agree to such restrictions. If one looks at the entire body of edits, I don't think that an admin would find that Giftiger, Minor4th or myself conducted ourselves inappropriately, nor do I think that the three of us should be blocked from editing each others pages. It has not just been the three of us that have had a problem with Nineteen's personal attacks and incivility, and a number of them have also commented on the issue. GregJackP (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, in good faith am beginning to have reservations about what increasingly seems to be a concerted effort by the proposing editors. If the editors in question have already made their contributions to the AfD, I see no further need for them to worry. Besides, the proposal obviously refers to edit warring on articles, not AfDs, etc. Huh? Am also concerned about one editor's upfront refusal to abide by suggestion i.e. informal proposal for arbitration, the details of which would obviously be set out by an admin.

This is not about the AfD or edit warring, it is about repeated personal attacks and incivility. I have outlined what has happened and documented it - why would I voluntarily agree to a ban without having done anything inappropriate? I have yet to be warned for misconduct of any type and have tried to conduct myself appropriately. If I have done otherwise, then of course I would be agreeable to some sort of admin action, but I'm not going to volunteer for punishment where I haven't done anything. GregJackP (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would agree to stay away from NN's edits and his talk page if he stays away from my talk page and discontinues to make accusations about me by user name. Minor4th (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No, I don't think the proposal has anything to do with edit warring in the slightest. Minor4th (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no stake in the Don Martin page. I think that the editor's actions as described above, including their hypothetical suggestion to reveal another editor's conflict of interest to local media, speaks for itself. JNW (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of Martin's socks also voted delete before changing their votes to keep on the first AfD. Does that seem peculiar? In any case, Martin has been very adept at making his socks appear like independent editors. Not saying that is what is happening, just trying to address your comment. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

With the notable exception that he used the same IP address for all of them, as well as behaving in a similar way in all cases, and a checkuser confirmed all socks and they were all blocked. As I have said before, I invite you to take a look at my contribution history, Minor4th's contribution history, GregJackP's contribution history, and anyone else who you disagree with and therefore decide to accuse of sockpuppetry. You'll find that we all have significant and varied edit histories, and there is quite literally no basis whatsoever for an SPI, and certainly no basis for the persistent defamatory comments you have left about all of us. In any case this is a separate issue and the discussion of Martin's various socks is not relevant to the proposal and it is not a defense for your clear history of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Look, I really would prefer to have a civil discussion like two adults. You say something, I answer or try to, etc. and hopefully we resolve whatever issue is in front of us. Anyway, I've asked the three of you repeatedly why you are so adamant the piece be kept. He just doesn't seem notable much at all. More like his 15 minutes of fame and he wants an article out of it. I don't get it, but I would like to know why you, Minor4th and GregJackP are fighting so hard for this one. I promise to try and keep civil here, but I would appreciate if you could make an effort to better communicate your thoughts, too. There seems to be a lot of mystery. But that doesn't mean Im opposed to admitting a mistake. If you are not socks, then I can accept it, but your behavior has appeared to mirror the subject's own. This whole thing has obviously been frustrating for a lot of folks, including me. If you are not a sock, I do apologize and will readily admit such things if they are indeed verified or explained. It also seems a lot of the confusion around Wikipedia is related to lack of communication but not sure we can do much about it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Nightmares, I realise that this has been a frustrating process but the veritable mountain of personal attacks you've made simply isn't acceptable, and being civil for the duration of this AN/I report isn't going to negate that. As I have stated several times, and I might add, never in anything less than a civil tone, all of us have made our views very clear, as well as carefully justifying our reasons. You have made numerous arguments which amount to "I don't like it", and there is very clear evidence for that above. I still plan to support the block since frankly your actions have been totally unacceptable despite my attempts to reason with you. If the block is carried through, I hope that the experience will serve to help you recognise these mistakes and not repeat them in future. I have no issue with you providing you keep future communication civil and observe policy, and I would encourage you to edit constructively following whatever block is actioned, if this nomination is indeed actioned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking a WP:Wikibreak anyway. Good luck with everything and I'm glad you are not a sock. You still have not answered the question of why you want to keep it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

If you read my comments on the AfD and the review more carefully, and especially if you look through the previous consensus discussions, you will find that I have very carefully and very completely described my viewpoint of why this article should be kept per wikipedia policy. I suggest you read these comments if you want answers, because I do not feel I need to explain any more times than I have already, and in any case this is not relevant to the AN/I discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19N, I have asked you to look at the talkpage of the article in question where I was in opposition to Dmarinaus and his socks on the lawsuit section, I initiated the SPI on him and his socks, a checkuser did not show any connection with myself (or Minor4th/Giftiger) and Dmarinaus, I have asked you not to continue to repeat your unsubstantiated allegations of sock/meat puppetry, I have warned you about it, etc. None of it has stopped what I believe to be unacceptable behavior on your part, nor brought on any degree of civility that I could discern. I support the block proposal. GregJackP (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for a block. Despite numerous warnings, a previous AN/I thread, and a lot of patience from other users, NN continues to disregard Wikipedia policies. Given that he has not in the past two months learned to interact with other editors in a civil manner, then I feel a block is, unfortunately, necessary. We have all spent way too much time dealing with this WP:DRAMA. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for a block per nom. I think something shorter than three months is more appropriate. I'd say a week or two and then monitor. I'm concerned that NN still does not have any insight into his own bad behavior and apparently thinks he has done nothing inappropriate since he was last blocked. Minor4th (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 3 months might be too long. 2-3 weeks might be more appropriate. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the repeat performance after the last block, as well as the number of warnings the user has ignored, I'm not sure that 2-3 weeks will be long enough to have a good chance of really stopping the behaviour. But I am flexible with my views on that, and in any case if it continues after a 2-week or so block, a longer block could be implemented later. I'm still in favour of around 3 months, but I have no real objection to it being 2 weeks instead if that is what consensus decides. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a shorter block (two or three weeks) and I would urge Nineteen Nightmares to get a mentor, because his behaviour has been very poor, so far. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a block. The thing that struck me as really strange about 19 nightmares was as soon as he got the original reprieve from AfD to fix the sources in his article (and after he doled out a few barnstars) to would be allies, he began deleting other peoples articles, showing no compassion for anyone. However now he certainly feels sorry for himself when things do not go his way...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe we've essentially snowballed that there should be a block, but it seems split as to the length of the block; can we discuss that a bit more thoroughly? I invite those contributors who have supported without modifying the nominated block period to also discuss what length would be most suitable. I'm also wondering about opinions on the proposed additional topic ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, what you have is a consensus of mostly involved users and that's not a consensus that we recognise. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree there. Support from unrelated parties has been shown by Salvio, Modernist, Pdcook, Technopat, and others. I would also like to strongly emphasise that this is about recent personal attacks made against myself, Minor4th, and GregJackP and has no relation to the AfD or review discussions; the issue is with his behaviour, not his opinions on the topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Most of the above items (including my warnings) pre-date the last block so 19Nightmares has already been blocked for them. My observation of the user is that their behaviour has improved markedly since the block. If they've slipped in the last few days, it's probably because they feel under attack and that their article is being unfairly targeted as punishment for editing the Martin article (I don't personally think this but I can certainly understand why 19Nightmares might). I really don't think that a long term block or ban is appropriate given the circumstances. If there are civility issues, I would suggest a civility parole. I also note that most of the people supporting are people involved with Martin or newspaper articles and it's really unfair for them to have such a heavy involvement in this decision. I don't mind them stating their views but community sanctions really need strong input from uninvolved and uninvested parties, not those with a vested interest in getting rid of an opponent. See the Ban policy which explicitly calls for "a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute". Therefore, I call on the closing administrator to weight the views of the half-dozen votes from people involved in underlying disputes with this user. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could provide a list of users you feel are too involved to contribute to consensus, then that would be helpful. There have clearly been comments from numerous third-party contributors who were not involved in this series of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're kidding me! As one of the very involved parties, I'm sure that you're fully aware of the fact that the bulk of the people here are involved in disputes with 19Nightmares. If you want a list, a good place to start is with Greg's contributions and the people he notified of this ANI, who then came straight here to rubber stamp their vote on it. And I'm using the word "vote" very deliberately here because that's what you all are doing with your empty "support per nom" type votes. You might not be aware but we don't actually do "Votes for Banning" nor "Votes for Bannishing". Rather, this process is meant to be a conversation which reaches a consensus of uninvolved users. I don't think that I should have to start compiling lists - rather the involved parties should have the personal integrity to be clear in their comments that they're involved in disputes with 19Nightmares, so involved, in fact, that Greg notified them about this discussion, and then leave it to uninvolved users to decide how to proceed. Sarah 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no idea whether three weeks or three months is enough time to encourage behavior modification--but I don't think we're discussing a cooling off period--this is a long term and unrelenting mode, not a sudden flash of anger. I'm not clear that 19 has done damage to articles, so I don't know that I'd support a ban on topics. The issue seems to be a kind of insistent ownership, which can be transferred to other topics, and results in notably aggressive reactions whenever challenged, and the belief that there is a vendetta. That didn't start with the Martin article; it's been there from the first challenges to the valley paper. I'm most troubled by today's threat to contact the media in order to publicize another, blocked, editor's self-promotion. Boundaries aren't understood and guidelines are abused, and the user's 'newness' is continuously invoked as an explanation. Since I was involved in the newspaper article, my thoughts can be weighed appropriately. JNW (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Sarah, even without the earlier (pre-block) activity, he has shown remarkably uncivil behavior with personal attacks. Since the ban he has:

• Accused GregJackP of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Giftiger of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Minor4th of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Called Dmartinaus an idiot, how he "slimed, cheated and faked" and then threatened to notify a local Austin newspaper about Martin's conduct.
• Characterized Dmartinaus as "this stuffed shirt from Texas."

Those involved in the earlier cases have also commented, and are concerned about 19Ns long-term pattern of behavior. As far as a vested interest, it appears that the DRV is heading for an endorse, which I will accept as the consensus decision. I don't agree with it, but that is how it is supposed to work. Whether 19N is here or not will not make a difference on that outcome, and there is no need to silence him on that basis. I would have hoped that you AGF on our part, but if not, that is OK too. I certainly don't think that a civility parole is appropriate based on the threat to contact Austin newspapers. In any event, if I'm correct, this needs to stay open for a while anyway to make sure that uninvolved editors and admins can look at it, evaluate it, and make their recommendations. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have a single thing to do with assuming good faith - it's purely about treating people fairly by complying with the banning policy. Whether you think you have anything to gain from getting rid of an opponent is meaningless, the fact remains that you and the others above are heavily involved in disputes with this fellow and policy requires a consensus of uninvolved users for community sanctions. You're entitled to state your opinion and present evidence but you need to accept that the decision comes from the uninvolved community. I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here. You don't present diffs so I can't actually check what he wrote (a major problem when you quote and paraphrase people out of context and don't provide diffs for people to read the comments in full themselves) but I don't see a problem with raising concerns that involved parties may be running puppets especially when their behaviour is entirely inexplicable and baffling - that's why we have an SPI in the first place. The only possible problem is the manner in which he does it. I certainly agree that he can be incivil and abrasive and that's why I think a civility parole should be tried before we even talk about banning someone. Yes, I'm not surprised that you don't want to try a civility parole. You're probably the most "involved" of all the involved users and I don't blame you for being exasperated and fed up but bans should be a last resort. We have here someone who has been blocked ONCE - for 24 hours only! And you want to jump from that straight into a ban! If we're going to make such a dramatic jump, there needs to be very clear with no questions about fairness and that's only going to happen if there's a consensus of uninvolved people. Thus I urge you and the others to leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins. We see above attempts to declare that a ban proposal is "snowballed" on the basis of a group which is at least 90% involved people and the claim that the only issue remaining in question is the duration. This is completely unacceptable. We do not allow people involved with disputes with a user to shepherd and push through a ban in this way. If uninvolved admins review the evidence and conclude that a ban is appropriate, I will support that. However, I will not accept a ban that is heavily driven by the group of people so heavily involved. Look, I've been very critical of 19Nightmare's behaviour, I've given him very stern warnings, I've refused to unblock him, and I've got no interest in protecting him from his actions. But I insist that all users are treated fairly and I'm not going to abide a ban that violates the banning policy. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please provide a diff for the threat to contact newspapers - that's the first I've heard of it and I can't find any evidence above for it. It's very unhelpful this business you have of making allegations but not giving us a diffs so we can check for ourselves, thus requiring us to completely accept your interpretation. This isn't the way ANI works. Read the instructions at the top - we require diffs so we can review the evidence for ourselves. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[57] "How would your major Austin newspaper feel about this as a story? About how this "big time," highly respected PR firm owner just slimed, cheated and faked his way through adding his own puff article to Widipedia. Honestly, I'm full exhausted with your subjective babble and repeated denials about your behavior. Get it together or just edit your own website, where we know you are Superman. You are not going to be allowed to use Wikipedia to further your own selfish interests. Not while I'm around, sorry." <------ by NineteenNightmares. There are many diffs in the Wikiquette notice posted by GregJackP that is copied above. -- Minor4th (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd also note that these personal attacks started from the very start of the initial AfD discussion, with extremely rude and insulting comments from the individual, which I was very lenient with. I only started warning him after the 3rd or 4th occasion, when the attacks were severe enough to warrant a couple of them being removed and replaced with an explanatory note regardless of the fact that this was on Afd. I forgave that since a couple of weeks passed while I was inactive however, and issued more informal warnings for him to stop, and yet despite the fact that I didn't start template-warning him until the 3rd or 4th instance again, it reached a final warning in the end. And that's ignoring comments he made inbetween, such as the personal attacks he made to Dmartinaus' user talk page which I couldn't warn him about as they had been made before my previous warning. I think it's clear he's a pretty severe offender and repeated offender and I'm wondering whether you are opposing the block because you honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block, or simply because you don't feel we should be participating in the process, as you stated previously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I'm opposing for two reasons. I fully agree there are problems with 19Nightmares's behaviour, but we have methods for dealing with that (civility paroles, topic and interaction bans, short and incremental blocks etc) which don't require us to jump straight into a long term ban and these options should be exhausted first because such lengthy blocks are a last resort, not a first. I'm not opposed to a reasonable block if there have been further civility violations, but 19Nightmares has only been blocked once and that was only for 24 hours, a very short block, so this 3 month ban with an indefinite topic ban is extraordinarily excessive and coupled with the fact that it's coming from his opponents on those very same topics they want him banned forever from and I find it completely unacceptable. If his behaviour is so problematic, users should be reporting (with diffs, not mere quotes and paraphrasing) so admins can review and block incrementally. This hasn't happened so the point hasn't been driven home about the tolerance for such behaviour. Secondly, it's unacceptable having involved users push through a longterm block and an indefinite ban for their opponent. As I've said, the banning policy is very clear that bans require a consensus of uninvolved users. Frankly, involved users should only present evidence and give their opinion but not actually be voting because their "consensus" is irrelevant and their "votes", without even declaring they're involved, corrupt the whole process and lead other people to believe that there's a large amount of uninvolved support for a ban so they just go along with it. It's completely tainted and unfair. You ask "whether...[I] honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block". I fully agree there are civility issues and could well warrant another block (I'd have to have a close look at the diffs since the last block), however, such a block should increase incrementally (since the last one was 24 hours, I'd suggest a week), not jump straight into a long term ban. Sarah 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per Sarah above. I think she makes the most sense. I must say that 19Nightmares brought up many legit points in his defense that I agree with. I can understand how he feels. It appears to me that he is very much under attack by his opponents and was frustrated, which is normal. However he feels, it's no reason to punish him or silence him. I should also point out that the block proposal is a bad idea in my opinion. Caden ^cool 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I EC'd a bit too, whilst seeking the right words... the following is probably still wrong, but if I do not post it now, it might never 'take';

• Support the specific proposal for a 3 month block.Not as 'cooling off' but, to protect Wikipedia from harm, based upon recent contribs. Also - it should go without saying - with no comment regarding any subsequent unblock request, in which the user might explain why their unblocking would not cause further disruption; to me, it is clear that a block is an appropriate action, and should have already happened; the correct forum for a discussion of unblocking is via an unblock request. I believe that I am a neutral party in this matter; I have come across the users contribs (via Mr. Wales' talk), but that is all.

19, if you're reading this please remember: I am one of those who does not 'bite the newbies' - I try very hard to help new users. I understand your frustration, I really do - but resorting to personal comments does not further the cause of Wikipedia. I make this !vote without any prejudgement; I truly hope that you will come back and interact in a collegiate manner. I support the specific proposal - you've (recently) harmed the project, and two wrongs do not make a right. If you can explain to an admin in an unblock request why it would not do harm to remove the block, that would be all well-and-good; I really hope you understand what I am saying here. Even if others don't "play by the rules", I do.

Your user page is WP:POINT -y, and borderline WP:NPA; My biggest suggestion for "fixin" Wikipedia would be to vet all editors and block the seemingly 90% of people who are here to harrass under guise of site protection while in reality they've done nothing but cause a lot of confusion. and dozens of Wiki editors and only one that was willing to go beyond crude criticisms and actually be constructive - I accept that this is not personal, but it is an attack against the Wikipedian demographic grouping.

Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect. Yes, it has many, many huge problems. However, I encourage you to "fix the problem from within" - work with your fellow Wikipedians, not against them.

As always, I advise caution and relaxation - it's only a damn website, after all. Let's chat, eh, and figure out how to fix this? But play nice. Chzz  ►  01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support three-month ban; however, I do not support the indefinite topic ban, but instead suggest a one-year topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly, as indefinite topic bans are almost nearly unhelpful, no matter what the situation is. (Note that I am a neutral editor that has not been involved with this conflict before I read this on ANI.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 19Nightmares has only ever been blocked once and for 24 hours. It is very excessive, to say the least, to jump from a one single 24 hour block to a ban. Very excessive and very unusual. People who get banned for civility related issues usually have a list of blocks and other options have been exhausted. We have other options and tools available which we would ordinarily try before moving to ban someone. Sarah 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at this indefinite block of User:Threeafterthree and unless I am missing something it looks a bit severe. I left a comment at User:Fastily's talkpage but he has added a wiki short break comment. I have had some good exchanges with Threeafterthree and looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions for over four and a half years. Is there perhaps another method we could restrict him for a while without complete rejection? User:KeptSouth and User:Tcncv have also commented in a similar vein. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily overturn block: I agree that this is a far too extreme reaction. I haven't looked in great detail at the edits, but based on the discussion, the edits did not appear particularly severe, the user was never warned as far as I can see, and the user also has an extensive history of making minor constructive edits. Unless I am missing something drastic, I believe this block should be speedily overturned and the user warned. If problems persist, by all means reinstate a block: but a fairly short one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is certainly no personal criticism of Fastily, I have had some interaction with this sysop in the past and I have never had an objection with any of his actions that I've seen, but we all make mistakes and I think he acted a little rashly here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked for 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is something that Threeafterthree has done before and has been warned about, and 72 hours is an escalation of their recent block of edit warring. An indef block for removing two questionable talk page comments is not a proportional response. Fences&Windows 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Block as originally issued was proper, and Fences' revert without proper discussion was clearly improper. I think the original block was completely deserved. This editor has been blocked a number of times before. Included has been a block for precisely the same behavior that he was warned of here, and continued to engage in, vis-a-vis multiple editors on the same day. He is way too experienced, and has been warned and blocked way too many times, to be excused as a newbie, or anything other than intentional callous disregard for the rules of wikipedia and intentional disruption of the project -- yet again. 72 hours for the sixth block? I don't think so. This is intolerable behavior from a master edit warrior and ignorer of the rules of wikipedia. Not someone who should be coddled, and not someone who Fences should revert another sysop on -- certainly in the absence of input from the sysop and fulsome input here (Only 21 minutes of discussion? Seriously?).

This master violator of wikipedia rules has been blocked variously for 24 hours, 48 hours, 55 hours, 1 week, and 1 month prior to Fastily's meting out the ban. Fences not only railroads through a reversal of a highly respected sysop's ban with 21 minutes of discussion, and without input from the sysop, but dials it back to 72 hours given that history of rampant abuse, level of punishment, and continued in-your-face repeat of the same disruptive behavior, after multiple warnings, to multiple editors on the same day? I fail to see a legitimate rationale for Fences doing so. See below, as to his block history.

• 21:20, June 17, 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)
• 10:32, March 16, 2009 CIreland (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: at Sean Hannity)
• 16:07, November 13, 2008 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama. Continued disruptive pattern of behavior)
• 06:21, October 27, 2008 Papa November (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Reverting other users' edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period at Sarah Palin)
• 01:31, September 9, 2008 Ice Cold Beer (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR, repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments)
• 19:44, November 20, 2006 Jayjg (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits)
  • I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here. My reblock is of course open to review, but by independent parties, not those directly involved in content disputes. I have also posted a note about the Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement at Talk:Helen Thomas. Fences&Windows 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Incivility? Treating Wikipedia as a battleground? I'm criticizing you for dialing back another sysop's block, on someone who is a repeat offender, and has been blocked (up to a month) and warned a multitude of times. And your response is ... I'm sorry if you're offended by my questioning your judgment here. But that is not uncivil. Nor is it inappropriate, as your comment suggests. First you take the above actions, and now you compound them by trying to bully an editor who criticizes your actions? Not, I believe, what wp:admin suggests an admin should do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here." Note the key word: "before". This was a note to make clear that my warning on your talk page about treating Wikipedia as a battleground and for what I saw as incivility was done before you criticised my change of the block and was not done as a retaliation to your criticism; I was not attempting to bully you. Your criticism of me here is of course allowed (though you are an involved editor, so it will hold less weight than the view of uninvolved editors) and I was not trying to suggest that you were attacking me or being uncivil. Fences&Windows 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also note that Fastily has posted to say they are on a wikibreak for several days, or I would have discussed this with them before changing the block. Changing an action is not wheelwarring; reverting my new block without discussion would be. Fences&Windows 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block was severe for the edits. I hardly think your description of 3after3 as a master edit warrior is fair either and he does imo attempt to stay within the rules, he is hardly making the wiki wheels drop off. His block log is here, he has only had one 48 hour block in the last eighteen months, to assert that indefinite is appropriate is totally excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3)Note also that the last block in that log was over a year ago and all of the blocks have been short-period, for relatively minor offenses (we can't see the circumstances surrounding the 3RR violations without digging into his contribution history, but there is doesn't seem to be any indication that this user is a long-term offender, as I can see many positive contributions in his recent history. I believe that Fences' speedy overturn was appropriate (as I suggested above), and that a 72-hour block period is suitable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no comment to make at this time about the original block, but reverting an admin action under review at ANI without waiting for a consensus is improper, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (edit conflict) You may have a valid point there, but I think given the circumstances, an indefinite block was essentially complete overkill and given the user's positive history (clearly as well as some degree of negative history), I think that it is appropriate to address that problem immediately before the user is discouraged from ever editing constructively again; this is in accordance with WP:DONOHARM and at the least, I believe WP:IAR can be made to apply here. If consensus overturns the reversal by Fences then fair enough, but in the meantime it seems very extreme. Again, I certainly do not believe that Fastily intended to cause an issue, but I do believe he was a bit hasty with the indefinite block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Reduction in block length to 72 hours. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved, but I agree with the reduction. Perhaps, under normal circumstances, overturning an admin action under review is improper, but if an admin doles out an *indef* block, and promptly takes a wikibreak, I believe it's the correct course of action. 72 hours will provide enough time for a review and consensus to form. Blocks can then be adjusted again if necessary, although I believe 72 hours will prove to be appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no problem with the block length reduction. Also, an indef block of an established editor with nothing on their talk page except a template isn't good. (I worded that poorly.) Also, making an indef block on an established user, and leaving nothing on their talk page except a template to explain the block, isn't good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reworded 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the block length reduction, but we should ask Fastily why he chose to block Threeafterthree indefinitely as opposed to a shorter block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really will not do, all these attempts to undermine an entirely proper block. The time has come to take the next logical step, and block all content editors. In particular, long term editors with established track records of useful contributions should be blocked immediately. Some of those creatures actually expect to be treated with some basic human decency; others have expressed dangerous views, even, gasp, challenging the view of an administrator. This must stop. Pre-emptive action should be taken by blocking wantabe content editors who signal their intention by creating an account. It is from precisely this group that future trouble makers arise. Wikipedia doesn't need these people, who seem to think mere content matters, and clearly do not understand that administrators are elected by the RfA, an infallible process which elects the true elect only. It is time to get real and get things back in proportion, restoring to all administrators their rightful glory, and putting an end to those who would question them. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely ridiculous. The encyclopedia is built with content editors; blocking them all would lead to the downfall of the project. If we had no content editors, all of the articles on Wikipedia would stay nearly the same, with no new articles added that had significant content in it. That would defeat the purpose of the wiki, block useful constructive editors, cause other editors to retire because of this, discourage newcomers from joining the wiki, and overall produces a bad look of the wiki to the general public if we disallow content editors. If we block the editors all, who are the admins to "govern"? The answer to that question would be "no one", as we would have the rest of the wiki left. Go discuss all about policy if the rest of the wiki wishes to; if we have no content editors, our articles will not be vastly improved if need be, and we will not have lengthy articles about current and important subjects, making the discussion of policy absolutely pointless. Your logic is also flawed: Just because one content editor may have these "dangerous" views does not mean that every content editor would have these views. To summarize: Epipelagic, you are welcome to your ideas, but they seem completely unreasonable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Epipelagic's edit is that I have no idea which parts are sarcastic and which parts are not. This is why it's generally best to state your views clearly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Um, MC10, I believe that was sarcasm (which works really well on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SNOW close of this conversation since rob brought it forth and is alright with the 72 hour block. I don't think anyone is arguing that a block should happen here, only the time frame. Since that's been changed, let's move on. Three is on thin ice but hasn't cracked through quite yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Epipelagic's edit was sarcastic, well, it didn't help much. Sarcasm is so easily detected on the Internet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it was sarcasm. This is another one of Epipelagic's comments. My fault that I took his comment too seriously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody please start a SPI on XJRfoBY (talk · contribs) aka TheTacoKing96 (talk · contribs)? As an IP editor, I'm unable to do so but the evidence is pretty solid. Both are single purpose accounts focused on promoting Mark Kirk and/or negativizing (is that a word?) the article of Kirk's political oppenent, Alexi Giannoulias. There are no concurrent edits, with each having a distinct block of time in which the other did not edit. (XJRfoBY 17:06 - 18:41; TheTacoKing96 18:49 - 18:54; XJRfoBY 18:59 - 19:06; TheTacoKing961 9:13 - 19:16; XJRfoBY 20:16 - 20:37; TheTacoKing96 20:40 - 20:50) Both have the habit of not signing their talk page posts, and both have a similar style of edit summaries. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not open an account, and (as a non-IP), seek it yourself? Might be better, as you could then follow it and answer any questions as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are you sure that an account is necessary to initiate an SPI and/or Checkuser request? I notice that the SPI pages are not semi-protected, and I see no reason why an IP shouldn't be allowed to initiate the request and/or provide evidence in the investigation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There still needs to be a SPI page created, which I have done, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XJRfoBY. N/A0 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you even informed the editors in question - above and beyond. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are generally unable to create new pages (except for talk pages). Once the page exists I am able to freely edit and comment. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Reply at GiftigerWunsch: IPs cannot create pages, so they would be unable to create the SPI page to initiate the request.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Epeefleche: That would be what I would recommend, but I have two comments about that point:

1. Some IPs do not wish to create an account.
2. Some users may not know how to create an SPI.

Since an SPI has been created, you can edit that page, 69.181.249.92. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this can be safely marked as resolved now since the investigation has been launched as requested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing, expanding and improving the Wikipedia article on National-Anarchism since 5 October 2009 and my work was praised on 8 February 2010). Unfortunately, since the beginning of of June 2010, User:Rjuner, who openly admits to being Andrew Yeoman, a local “leader” in the National-Anarchist movement, has taken a more active interest in the article. I suggest everyone read a 2009 report from the Southern Law Poverty Center entitled 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists to familiarize yourself with this individual and his agenda. As I explained to him on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, Yeoman therefore has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this article presents the definition, history, views, political positioning, and criticisms of his movement. When one look at his 13 June 2010 edits of the article, the majority of them seem to try to whitewash the racialist (racist) dimension of National-Anarchism and suppress some sourced criticisms in order to make his movement more attractive or less controversial. This is simply unacceptable. Furthemore, in light of his comments on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, it is clear that he doesn't understand that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether he think it is true. I therefore suggested to him to refrain from editing the article and limit himself to voicing his legitimate concerns about the content of the article on the Talk:National-Anarchism page so that other editors can access whether or not his claims have merit.

That being said, I was hoping a Wikipedia administrator could intervene in this dispute in order to resolve it once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While the COI rules do not prohibit an editor from editing something w/regard to which he has a COI, it does call for close scrutiny of his edits. Which are then to be judged under normal standards. Can you supply diffs? Say, the worst such instances? That might prove helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]