This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo to free up space on this page. MuZemike

Mooretwin on User:Vintagekits

I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.

On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.

The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.

The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support long or indefinite block. The incidents submitted are not very problematic individually, but as part of a pattern of conduct, they are. We are much too tolerant, in general, of editors who are (as the block log shows) incapable of observing basic rules of civil interaction. The disruption they cause generally outweighs the contributions they make.  Sandstein  05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin is causing disruption over many articles, and must be tackled. This[1] is the genre of tendentious editing he is involved in. He must be called to order. Tfz 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU says there is much amiss regarding the body of my complaint, because "VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles". He misses the point. VK has not shown any interest ever during my time on WIkipedia in editing articles relating to Irish League (i.e. Northern Ireland) or amateur/intermediate-level football in Northern Ireland. He had never posted on those sites and the only way he turned up on those sites was through following my edits. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that I have been "altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland"". It is the other way round - VK has been altering these to change them from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", presumably for some kind of political reason, based on the odd claim - supported by a small number of like-minded political editors - that "Northern Irish" is somehow "POV". The essence of this complaint is that the apparently sole purpose of VK's editing now is to pursue me and revert my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stu, it all totally depends on who is slinging the insults. Rock has a high tolerance when it come to certain editors, but since he has stalked and hassled Vin enough to be told to leave him alone, pushing GD's comment out of the way to address LessHeard’s points an example of their want to counter a constructive comment. Sandstein, you ability to act as an impartial Admin is already being questioned, and your contribution hear is possibly one of the reasons why. While admitting that the incidents hear and not very problematic, they try to suggest that as a patter of conduct they are a problem. That again depends like Stu has said on who the editor is? For example, here is a pattern and compared to Vin’s not very problematic posts a very clear pattern, but its ignored. Or the whole heap of accusations being made in the course of this discussion with multiple abuses of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and being spread across a number of pages [2] [3] [4]. Now neither Sandstein or Rock have mentioned Mooretwins pattern of behaviour at all, which again bears out Stu’s comments, and until such time as they do, ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes or as a form of harassment. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant Domer, and I'm certain that I have no idea what you are talking about. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I have no clue what Domer is claiming Sandstein I have done (Until we mention Mooretwin's behaviour - which I did - "ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes" WTF?); if you would like to me address your concerns, then you will need to clarify what you mean. Rockpocket 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Until the close of the Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case, any comment supporting Sandstein's views must be viewed with suspicion and discounted. Sandstein has been asked (and seems to be refusing) to lay down his tools pending the outcome of that case. I think this especially necessary when Sandstein takes it upon himself to comment on editors who have been involved in controversial political matters, as has Vintagekits. Sandstein's presence is at present guaranteed to exacerbate and confuse issues. Giano (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vintagekits has no relation to Eastern Europe. His initial political interests (now protected by a topic ban) were on Ireland. Unless you're suggesting Sandstein is involved in a Secret British Mailing List as well this is completely irrelevant. Regardless, Sandstein is expressing his opinion as an editor, not as an admin. He'd be out of place to institute the block now he's "voted" anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain similarities between the Rusavia's persecution by a politicaly operated mailing list and Vintagekit's persecution by a similar group of now banned users and socks, in both cases Admins have been fooled and tricked and Arbcom cases abused. My point is that it is concerning that Sandstein, with his history, is dropping by and advocating long blocks on subjects and editors of whom he presumably knows nothing. One wonders why? Giano (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, of a "similiar group of now banned users" persecuting Vintagekits. If you have evidence of this, feel free to drop it in at any time. Sandstein may well be familiar with vintagekits - he's at ANI so often that one doesn't need to work in the same content area to see his "work". Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you so ignorant of VK's history - or are you trying (badly) to be amusing? You "have seen no evidence" - are you newly arrived of just trolling for trouble? Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Vintagekits around here before in relation to the baronetcy thing, but I'm not aware of any cabal-esque action taken by other users to smear him. It's neither total ignorance, humour or trolling, simply a lack of (oh the irony) encyclopaedic knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will VK still be aloud to work on the Boxing articles? I hope he'll be. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this discussion pretty much sums up why I dont really edit here anymore. Mooretwin is possibly the most disruptive editor on wikipedia at the moment and consistantly ignores concensus and refuses to answer simply question with regards his interpretation to policy. Yet he comes he to bitch and provide a completely one side view of whats going on - totally slanted and without any balance at all but he still gets unquestioned support from the individuals that have pretty much driven me off here. Sandstein calls for an indefinate block - God you are laughable - please explain to me why I deserve an indefinate block (this should be good!) have you even looked at the links that Mooretwin has provided which he says breach NPA? Here are a few examples 1. correctly challenging calling someone "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" - is that a personal attack on Mooretwin? No! It's removing a POV and potentially BLP comment and replacing it with something that is neutral and factually accurate. 2. [5] telling him he was canvassing - which he does often and gets away with it despite multiple warnings - thats a personal attack? Saying he is editing in a POV and disruptive manner which was confirmed by admins - thats a personal attack? Asking him why he is using a blog as the only source for multiple articles! is that a personal attack?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds what do you mean by Sandstein has "voted" anyway? With baseless accusations like this tread, no wonder some editors are here so often. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer: His "support long/indefinite block" comment is similar to the sort of thing used in block/ban discussions here. Giano was implying that he shouldn't be taken into account because of his actions with the tools elsewhere, I was pointing out that he wasn't offering to use the tools here, he was simply "voting" (which would prevent him from "tooling up" altogether. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it goes against the spirit of Collaboration, perhaps an agreement between VK & MT can be reached. Howabout each editor not showing up at an article where the other is at? Also neither editor post at the other's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh - no! I was forced away from the Baronet articles to appease Kittybrewster and the issue I was there for still hasnt been sorted. Mooretwin is busy pushing his POV on wikipedia there doesnt seem to be anyone keeping an eye on him. I've done nothing wrong - just because the usual suspects - Rockpocket, Sandstein and Ironholds turn up to back up Mooretwins moronic rantings here doesnt mean that what he says are correct - because it isnt - thankfully others here have been quick to point that out. Mooretwin's objective is to try and some sort of topic ban or such other tools put in place so that he can carry on pushing his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it would serve both of you best, if you both avoided each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Vintagekits' topic ban as listed at /terms has been superseded by another topic ban, and the Arbitration Committee confirmed that ban by motion /terms is historical and should probably be deleted. It is in any case, not topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a user who is on the cusp between problem and "vested". Laughably, here Vintagekits asks how it is possible to sort out an issue if an editor deletes a comment, when inded s/he reverted my attempt to sort out an issue. Not an impressive stance. This resulted in a block (one that was supported by many other I might add). My patience has already been exhausted but I feel the community may wish to give this editor "another chance". Regretably, I think that this is consensus and that this thread probably is not going to go any furher. Arbitration is, I feel, likely to be unproductive. Bluntly - give Vintagekits enought rope. We don't do vested conributors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming at this with no previous interest in football or Vintagekits (but of both British and Irish background, so familiar with the issue), can I just point out that Mooretwin is either POV pushing or (unlikely, but en-Wikipedia is occasionally edited by folks from such as the Far East who occasionally make such faux pas) ignorant of the issue. "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - one group of occupants of the six counties views themselves as Irish, the other group as British. Neither would use the term to describe themselves, and reversion by somebody is inevitable. Mooretwins protestations that the reversion is by Vintagekits is therefore without merit, and should be at the minimum (if Mooretwin xyrself is not to warrant examination) be disregarded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse my frankness, but that is complete nonsense based on entirely fallacious and simplistic reasoning. It does not follow that because someone views him or herself as British or Irish that he or she therefore does not view him or herself as Northern Irish. There is no evidence to support such a fallacy. It is, ironically, a POV.
• Vintagekits succeeded in getting a category (or categories) changed from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", but with the express outcome that no precedent had been set. I created some stubs and wrote them in the "house style" which refers to "Northern Irish" (or "English" or "Scottish", etc.) footballers.
• In any case, this all misses the point. It doesn't matter what particular edits Vintagekits is reverting: the complaint is that, in addition to the personal attacks and incivility, his sole purpose on WP now appears to be to follow me around in order to revert me. He has turned up out of the blue at various articles on which he has never edited, solely to revert me. He has logged on to Wikipedia, checked out my contributions, reverted my edits, and then logged off.
• Ironically, in attempting to defend himself, Vintagekits has continued to attack me on this page, calling me a "POV pusher", (ironically) saying I am "possibly the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia" and referring to "moronic rantings". I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I wish to remove POV from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support long or indefinite block per Sandstein. --John (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here[6] is Mooretwin using the system for more of his disruption. He's perfectly entitled to do that, I know, but it's edit after edit after edit. Someone has to watch his tendentious editing. Tfz 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment appears to have no relevance to this section, which is about Vintagekits. This is the third intervention that TfZ has made here, each time to attack me, with odd examples of edits that he doesn't like, and at no time to comment on the subject of the incident. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it reflects on your motive to rid opposition from other editors. I attacked your continuous disruptive editing, and not you. You claim that you are removing pov, but in my experience that is the worst form of editing that can happen here at Wikipedia. You basically remove edits you wp:idontlikeit, and there is much that can come under that heading for almost all editors, but they don't do that. You are already making tendentious edits[7] to Ireland related articles when the linking is still being discussed at IRCOLL. Tfz 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict comments here to the topic. Your accusations are not appropriate here. Mooretwin (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are appropriate here. This discussion should be closed and you should be told that your use of Northern Irish, or a loyalist flag to represent NI must be discouraged. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please for that last? --John (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion you would notice they have already been provided. You did read the discussion before commenting didn't you? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absense of any diffs to back up Domer's accusation, we should warn Mooretwin, block Vintagekits indef, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warn me for what?? Mooretwin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen reason to indeff vintagekits yet either. This thread seems pretty incomprehensible as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tznkai time to close this spiraling mess. BigDunc 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you reckon that if you have enough like-minded mates to turn an incident into a "spiralling mess", you can get away with personal attacks and stalking. I see. I suggest instead that admins deal with the complaint itself and not be distracted by off-topic personal comments. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close this off now, as per BigDunc and the other editors. Agree broadly with LessHeard's insight. Tfz 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears John did not read the discussion, and still they want Vin blocked! Close this down its going no were fast. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why the term "Northern Irish" is a BLP violation or POV or extremely sensitive? Briefly and with a couple of wiki references, if possible? this and this by VK appear to be disruption, but I am willing to listen to an explanation of why it might in fact be sensitive before making final judgement. I believe the term is in use in the United States in common parlance, even among Irish immigrants to the US, but perhaps it is legitimately sensitive elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a politically loaded term and can indicate sectarnian/religous/plitical/ethnic allegency.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, what term isn't politically loaded in NI VK? So yes some people find the term offensive. You would have to ask them why. It doesn't stop 29% of people in NI describing themselves as such. That's 4% more than describe themselves as Irish, and even 25% of Catholics identify as Northern Irish. The term is currently avoided on Wikipedia as it is not a nationality. It is however a valid denonym and identity. But if it is not a nationality, then neither is English, Scottish or Welsh - just British. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so less than a third of people from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "Northern Irish" - I dont think you would get the same response for "Scottish" or "Welsh" - do you think less than a third of people in the US describe themselves as "American" or those in the "Republic of Ireland" as "Irish". It is potentially BLP and should be avoided as a label that is slapped on people "from Northern Ireland". Mooretwin knows this and has done for over a year (at least) but still attempts to try and sneak it into articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even less people describe themselves as Irish. So following your logic describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP. Yet many articles do so, simply because the subject is Irish. Yet you're not bothered about these BLP concerns? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is potentially BLP to simply describe someone from NI as Irish - and British for that matter. Best practice is that it should be sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the two links you have provided could ever be construed as disruptive. If you knew anything at all you would know that it was removing a POV label and replacing it with a neutral description.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP in the absence of sources which support this. Again, this is not the forum for content discussions, and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits on User:Mooretwin

• Mooretwin (talk · contribs)

Recently this user has been creating a number of articles with the sole source being a blog which does not satisfy WP:RS. For example see, Clancy McDermott, Eric Treverrow, George Dunlop (footballer) and Sammy Hughes (footballer).

I attempted to raise the issue on his talk page but my comment was deleted without reply. When I restored the comment it was then removed by another editor who outlined that I should not restore comments on another editors talkpage if they have deleted them. So I have come here to get an admin to step in and sort it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take it to Articles for Deletion? Don't see what this has got to do with ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your response to why you are using a blog as the only source to create an article? It is precisely that kind of answer what I am here and why you cause so much trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VK - even assuming you are entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here, this would be a routine page deletion discussion. Unless you are asserting he's inserting intentionally false material (creating hoax articles), creation of poorly sourced articles is not an admin noticeboard issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its part of a multi fronted campaign of general low level distruption. I am not calling into question the notability of the individuals to which the articles relate I am highlighting Mooretwins use of blogs to build articles and his refusal to discuss to issue or even answer simple polite questions as to why he is using it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VK is assuming nothing, he is entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here. Mooretwin is inserting intentionally and knowingly, contentious information, be it on flags or the term Northern Irish. I agree that this is not an admin noticeboard issue and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of 'Northern Irish' should be discouraged, as it's a very sensative term. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance Mooretwin could comment on why he is using a blog as the only source for articles or is it just drama he crave??? I thought this place was for sortin shit out!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still waiting for a response to this (from either an admin or Mooretwin) - which is really the only issue here with any substance to it. It seems people (John and Sandstein in particular) would prefer to focus on the non existent personal attacks that Mooretwin has dreamt up. Typical wikipedia eh!Vintagekits (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still nowt!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG suggested bringing this issue to ANI and I agree with it.

Here are the problems put together by Ikip about Evosoho:

Camponotus saundersi

nominated Camponotus saundersi for deletion. 13:51, 26 September 2009.[8]

Deleted: Workers are 4 to 6 mm long.<ref name=emery1889>Emery 1889: 516</ref> 14:59, 26 September 2009[9]

Deleted: ==Footnotes== {{reflist}} 14:59, 26 September 2009.[10]

Deleted almost all of the text of the article, no reason given, tagged as "minor": "Its defensive behaviours include self-destruction by autothysis. Two oversized, poison-filled mandibular glands run the entire length of the ant's body. When combat takes a turn for the worse, the ant violently contracts its abdominal muscles to rupture its body and spray poison in all directions." 19:51, 26 September 2009.[11]

Deleted reference section, reason given "correcting": "* {{aut|Emery, Carlo}} (1889): Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine. XX. Formiche di Birmania e del Tenasserim raccolte da Leonardo Fea (1885-87). ''Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria (Genova)'' 2 '''7'''(27): 485-520. [ PDF]" 19:55, 26 September 2009 [12]

Dream Focus reverts Evosoho's deletions. 20:10, 26 September 2009.[13]

Evosoho removes rescue template, reason given "canvassing" 20:12, 26 September 2009 [14]

Evosoho reverts Dream Focus restoration of material, reason given: "no vandilizm dream focus was vandalizng" 20:13, 26 September 2009.[15]

Template:Exploding_animals

Evosoho deletes nine of the eleven entries from the template. 20:38, 26 September 2009 [16]

Irbisgreif puts the article up for WP:TFD, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Exploding animals 20:52, 26 September 2009.[17]

Evosoho deletes the last two entries from the template. 21:00, 26 September 2009[18]

Exploding animals

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey result: merge. 9:44, 24 September 2009

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep result: keep, Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, 19:44, 24 September 2009

Evasoho merges Exploding donkey into Exploding animals. 20:08, 24 September 2009 [19]

Evasoho merges Exploding rat into Exploding animals. 21:15, 24 September 2009.[20]

Evasoho merges Exploding toads into Exploding animals. 14:39, 26 September 2009[21]

Evasoho puts the article Exploding animals up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (3rd nomination) [22]

Problems with him tagging articles for deletion goes back futher. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Perhaps not very relevant, but why the mish-mash between plural and singular for the titles? (Rats, toads, and donkey?) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. Calling them vandalism and the removing rescue tags is disruptive to efforts of Wikipedians trying to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Deconstructing an article without discussion, in order to make the article weaker when when being discussed at AfD might also be itself seen as disruptive vandalism of other's efforts to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. And a question: This diff shows that Evosoho takes credit for nominating an article for deletion, while the deletion page diff it lists the nominator as "3^0$0%0". Is this an eror, or is it an attempt to make it appear someone else did the nominating? If the former, it should be corrected. If the latter, it is a bad precedent, as it makes it appear as if someone else did the nomming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Further, the deconstruction of multiple articles without discussion, then merging the results into a seperate article without discussion, and then nominating that article for deletion seems to be an attempt to thwart the processes set in place in the project, and again seems disruptive of other's efforts to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to point 3, this revision shows that the bizarre signature was there at creation, but that the user / talk / contributions links do indeed go to Evosoho. The text appears to be leet. ^Bongo_matic 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the question, and thank you for the answer. Still though, and accepting that both sigs belong to the same person, the use of differing sigs within seconds of each other at different places might still be seen as confusing if one does not decide to follow the trail... as if I were to sign this User:XYZ123321ZYX (talk), rather than as MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unstruck after further research. This instance of using multiple sigs with one account within seconds of each edit is not consistent with policy at WP:Username. While technically not a seperate account and so not a sock, and not a single purpose only account so not a SPA, the use of this technique could be seen as improper in that it is misleading and could easily lead to an inference of false consensus for an action, and THAT violates WP:Username. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These actions were clearly inappropriate. Editing an article in order to weaken it & then sending it to deletion is very underhanded. I suggest a strongly worded warning not to do this again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that most of the "editing an article in order to weaken it" occurred after, not before, the article was sent to AfD, but I concur that the article is an obvious keeper, Since the AfD has been (non-admin) closed as a speedy keep, perhaps this thread could be marked as resolved. Deor (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the timing, although it doesn't really change anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination, there seems to be a deeper problem here. Evosoho appears to have a history of excessively bold, unilateral moves. In the last couple days he has moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment), moved Wubi to Wubi (disambiguation), userified several A7 article attempts without notifying the editor who made them, requested a major AfD template unprotect so he could unilaterally rename it, and more. He also put an article up for AfD with no edit summary and marked the edit as minor and made numerous clearly wrong RfD nominations.

Someone needs to have a serious talk with him as he seems to think his opinion on any given matter is all that counts. If he refuses to stop, he'll have to be blocked as the majority of his edits are (unintentionally) disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This War on Explosions isn't as unilateral as it is being painted here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding tree for several other editors who think that some of our "exploding X" articles are highly contrived just for the sake of having such an article. Evosoho's edits to the navigation template and mergers of articles are not as idiosyncratic as they are being painted here.

  Of course, that also leads to problematic edits such as Evosoho tagging an article as a hoax simply because it discussess a hoax. ☺ (I've held back my discovery that the NPR hoax isn't actually wholly a hoax, which will probably be to NPR's surprise, in the hope that someone else looking for sources would have found the sources that I did. It seems that no-one has, yet.)

  And then there are things such as moving user boxes out of user space, as as Evosoho did with Template:User OS:Windows — which used to be at User:Google box (MfD discussion) (current RFD discussion) … Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that there's good reason to give all of the exploding animals a hard look—many of them are loaded with WP:SYN and thinly justified. That said, I also agree with the close of that AFD; namely, that merge results imply that the new amalgam should be kept. I assume the user simply doesn't understand the constraints of consensus. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would really like to think this as a somewhat confused editor trying to consolidate and improve articles, without realising the consensus is needed for major changes, and that it helps to be direct in what you are doing and make things clear when there are problems. The sig also, which I find as annoying as all symbolic sigs, may not be a desire to be troublesome, just a failure to realise that when several people tell you something you are doing is wrong, you should consider the possibility that it might be., I don't really think of this editor as malign, just as reckless and determined not to pay attention to communication. I agree with Thaddeus in this--he is not intentionally trying to disrupt--but we nonetheless do have to deal with the disruption. Perhaps a short block will make it clear that we are taking this seriously. Many initially troublesome editors have understood after that and done much better--and as for the ones who still don't, we then know that we must follow through on the necessary steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Uncle G, DGG, MQS and Thaddeus B all make good points; I'm not surprised to see this brought to AN/I. The general pattern of editing here is disruptive. The signature is confusing and misleading. The pattern of moves, redirects and redirects for deletion is far too bold, especially asking for a major template to be renamed without any discussion beforehand. Whatever the faults of the Exploding organism series of articles, which I agree are many, agreeing to merge content and then proposing the merge target for deletion is underhand. Evosoho also seems unwilling to discuss editors' concerns with them. If they continue editing in this fashion, a block would seem to be wise. Fences&Windows 12:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I attempted to open an RFC/Username for Evosoho's signature. It was rejected on the grounds that it's not a username issue (which I think is an overly strict interpretation of the scope of the venue, but anyway). Evosoho has been asked by many editors now to change his signature, and he refuses to address the issue. I agree that there is a somewhat disruptive feel to his edits as well. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have taken a critical look at what at my edits have been. There is merit to what has been written as to the need for consensus for major changes, and I agree and will adhere to this approach. It does, however, become a question of what constitutes a “major change.” My being too bold was a result of me being shy of talk pages.

It is important to note that there may be discourtesy in other remarks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.) My intentions are to improve Wikipedia – I am not “underhanded” in any way. My signature was not offensive, it was simply my own, and should not have been a concern for serious editors. It was my own dialect of leetspeak. Notwithstanding, to please its/my detractor's I have changed it to “evo.” I had considered changing my signature. I just had not told you that.

As to the reasons for some of the changes that I have made that have been discussed above.

Gnome move: Why I moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment). In the event that you were looking for the mythical creature “Gnome” but typed all caps, you would get “GNOME (pronounced /ɡəˈnoʊm/)[1] is a desktop environment—a graphical user interface which runs on top of a computer operating system —composed entirely of free and open source software. It is an international project that includes creating software development frameworks, selecting application software for the desktop, and working on the programs which manage application launching, file handling, and window and task management.”. In this case, the mythical creature “Gnome” is (I believe) more notable, and the technical result might turn you away from Wikipedia.

Wubi move: Why I did the move to Wubi (disambiguation) was for the reason that “Wubi the Ubuntu installer” is by far the primary as compared to the “Wubi method” topic as illustrated by Google results -- 25 million to 3 million.

The Exploding animal AfD was my thinking that the merges have brought irrevocable Original Research.

--evo talk contribs 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My being too bold was a result of me being shy of talk pages." This hits the nail on the head. Discuss your edits more and consider your actions more carefully. Proposing an article for deletion immediately after agreeing with merging material to it is bizarre, and while I accept that this was not deliberately underhand your judgment was still faulty. A strange signature is not a hanging offense, but it is an issue if it leads to confusion. Fences&Windows 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of communication here really made things worse I think. Many of the big problems on Wikipedia start with a lack of communication. I'm glad you've come here to explain things, and also that you've changed your sig. You don't need to explain everything you do, but when someone asks or challenges one of your actions, you really should stop a minute and communicate. Gigs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have control of this account. Based on userpages, there's no way they were originally the same person. In addition, he claims to be using the Red Thunder account as a bot. I have had no headway trying to explain to him how Wikipedia works and what it's for. Perhaps someone with greater patience can try. → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you did better research than you did with this one. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Thunder has no edits since March. You would need a steward to run a checkuser on other projects where he may be active. Thatcher 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but User:Guitarherochristopher claims he has access to the account and is (will be?) using it as a bot. This is a problem on two fronts. → ROUX ₪ 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until Red Thunder has current edits, there are no local checkuser findings. Since Red Thunder is a unified global account, a steward can get his IPs from another project and either look to see if there is evidence of compromise, or save them for when Red Thunder starts editing again. It may in fact just be trolling by GHC. Thatcher 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect it is just trolling. In other news, if you attempt to roll back edits which leave no net change on the page content, a message pops up as if the rollback was successful, but nothing actually happens. huh. I would leave a note on GHC's talk page asking about this but it would appear that such a measure would be an exercise in futility. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has confirmed here that he has access to the account; I am waiting for proof. → ROUX ₪ 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It occurs to me that GHC may also be User:Coldplay Expert. Crafty (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll bite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher filed. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not guitarherochristopher, I can assure you of that fact. (Or vice versa)--Coldplay Expert 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his dad wants a word with you. :) [23] Crafty (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How odd. This is the second father with an autistic son misusing Wikipedia I've seen. Hm. In any case, could an admin please contact the father and explain the problems? It will be more effective coming from someone who can say (in some sense) that they can speak for Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y'know Roux, I don't think it's GHC dad. Admittedly I was wrong about the sockpuppet thing, but I think I'm on stronger ground with this assertion. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be the case with the other one I'm thinking about as well. In that case, it would seem (based on stuff found elsewhere online; this guy is somewhat notorious) that it's an older man with some weird obsessions. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weird obsessions you say? You don't have his number by any chance? :) Crafty (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know several of the usernames he tends to use. This case is weirdly similar, but in totally different subject areas. Odd. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitarherochristopher claims to be in 8th grade, let's consider his age when dealing with him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been. Multiple people have attempted to engage him to no avail. And I find it... difficult to believe the comment is actually from the putative father; I just received one in my inbox (funny how he says he can't use Wikipedia but finds Special:Emailuser no problem) that... well let's just say there's no way it was written by an adult. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you all belive me now when I tell you that I am not associated with him?--Coldplay Expert 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate problem

Guitarherochristopher keeps putting nonfree images on his userpage and elsewhere in his userspace. He's been warned about this at least twice--once by me, once on Sept 12. The cluelessness is becoming aggressive at this point. I don't have the patience to keep trying to educate here. Can someone else please jump in? → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guitarherochristopher

This is a message which may explain User:Guitarherochristopher's behaviour on Wikipedia, and follows on from his alleged sockpuppetry. I was looking at Coldplay Expert's talk page and I found this written there. I'm not sure if this has been noted already or if this page is the right place to report it, but if the message is true it may explain his disruptive editing behaviour on Wikipedia. - Nimbusania talk 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His conduct with others isn't all that good. major concern is him talking about his 13 year son on this, which does not add up to truth. Also, Others complain of him of failing to distinguish a user page and talk page on User_talk:Roux#Question:. I hope he can offer some insight why he is conducting himself in this way. He may listen to some advise as he did when he was warned of vandalism to the article Coldplay on User_talk:Guitarherochristopher#The Vandalism Is All Yellow. He later made some meaningful contribution to the article as you can see on [Article differences between revisions)]. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say we just outright ban him and get rid of this headache. What are the chances that Guitarherochristopher is autistic? Probably slim to none. What are the chances that his father really discovered who his best friend on Wikipedia is and posted a message on his talk page explaining his son is autistic? Is it really even reasonable that someone who is autistic would be engaging in editing on Wikipedia? This is all just too bizarre. Seems like Guitarherochristopher is just playing some stupid game and trying to fool people. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people on the Autism spectrum would be highly capable of editing Wikipedia, so I'd rein that comment back if I wuz u. Which does of course not guarantee either that he is 13 or that his father wrote the other comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not his "Best friend on Wikipedia" despite what he has said in the past. I am glad that you all have now realized that I am not a Sock but I still what to tell you that I do not support any actions by him. In fact I was fooled by his fake note. I will support any decision that you guys have. I hope that you all belive me on this matter.--Coldplay Expert 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As irritating as some are finding the situation, I still think there is some hope that this user can become constructive, he just needs some guidance. I'm happy to mentor/adopt Chris, at least until he is on the right track. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you should try to adopt him, he has made some good edits in the past, he just needs guidence.--Coldplay Expert 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we may have an over-zealous NPPer. Fngosa (talk · contribs) is tagging a lot of articles with prod and speedy notices, a fair proportion of which either don't qualify as speedies or were tagged within seconds of the creation of articles which had {{under construction}} notices or added comments to the same effect from the article creators. When questioned about some of these taggings, (s)he has not exactly become uncivil, but has certainly used a tone which seems less than friendly - though this may be because of the vagaries of written English (I suspect that Fngosa may not use standard UK or US English. This doesn't really fit as a civility issue or as a deletion review issue, but I think some attention needs to be drawn to it since this is causing some issues with people who are writing genuine stubs. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS - the following diffs may prove informative: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops -apologies. I thought I'd done so. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Jayron32's conclusions, the question I have is what we do about it? Is a short tap with the cluestick to "abusive"? Perhaps if the block notice also contained a link to WP:Consensus? Unless the editor decides to conform to WP practice and policy it might be argued that they are disruptive, regardless of the good faith intentions.

        I am shortly to bed, otherwise I would perform a block - but I think the sanctioning admin needs to be avialable to unblock as soon as meaningful communications are established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I think that "overzealous" may be too kind. The editor, when cautioned about erring says "Hi mate, some articles are given wrong speed deletion tags for convenient. It is not a big deal, at the end of the day, what ever tag i give it, it will still be deleted." added emphasis mine- Sinneed 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - emphasis - Sinneed 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wield thy trusty admin swords, O wiki-knights of the round-and-round-we-go table. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking may be premature at this minute. He's been notified of this thread, and several editors commenting here have recommended that he stop speedy tagging. Until he starts up again, we should not block him. If he DOES start up again, with the same problems, then a block may be forthcoming. Lets give him a chance to read and respond to this thread. --Jayron32 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that "This article is too abstract to be an encyclopedic article" at Talk:Plumber's Mait is particularly bizarre. I've left some Clue of the subtle variety. But this might prove to be too subtle. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Just chiming in to say that I find communicating with him very frustrating. His misuse of {{db-g6}} is particularly problematic. And of course, when I pointed this out to him, all he does is pointing me to his weird convoluted process. He seems to think that he's got some sort of authority as a NPPer, which certainly isn't true. I'll also add in this diff. What kind of competent NPPer would tag that as a G11? And when I pointed it out to him, his response: [29]. I was thinking about filing an AN/I report myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion exists to be pointed to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A fair percentage of Fngosa's edits and vandal warnings are also problematic. He's acting as a self-proclaimed caped crusader, but is far too zealous and doesn't take constructive criticism well. A lot of the speedies are added less than 60 seconds after page creation or recent change. This will give WP a bad name.

  An IP editor added "in a time loop" after the word "stuck" in an article about a film. This was reverted by Fngosa as vandalism. A quick and simple google on the film title + "time loop" showed that the IP editor was right and this was done in good faith. See diff.

  And this which I think was done in good faith was reverted as vandalism and the editor received an immediate blatant vandalism warning. Many of his warning templates have unprofessional and idiosyncratic comments added to them. He needs to play by WP policy and guidelines, not by his own strange system which seems designed to provide a rationale for his own strange way of working.

  In addition, see Talk archive where Fngosa quickly manually shifts problematic comments and warnings.

  Fngosa also needs to check the effect of his edits after he's made them, for example adding a category without noticing that the number of brackets or braces are mismatched, or that the thing is redlinked, or an inappropriate category, or that a note on the category page says don't add directly to this category. On the Plumber's Mait talk page, he says that the title is also wrong and that the article needs moving, but a quick click on the external link shows that the spelling is actually right. In other words, he needs to do some research when making edits, tagging and reverting.

  Lastly, Fngosa says on his pages and in a userbox that he's been editing on WP since 2006. The edit counter here says 30 Aug 2008 as 'Fngosa'. He has sometimes edited as Freshymail, though not since a botched name change.

  Esowteric+Talk 08:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • End of Esowteric's comment, to avoid further confusion over who said what.
• I do (well, did) a lot of Special:Newpages work. Would it be useful if I "mentored" Fngosa, assuming he agrees to it? Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are willing to do that, great, another problem is that the instructions on his userpage for anyone who wants to talk to him about his adding CSD tags are incoherent and will actively confuse any new editors who want to talk to him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Righto, I'll head off and give him an offer. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over-zealous NPPer - response

response This is too much to defend myself. only negative points have been raised except one or two. It will be unwise to defend myself against these negative views, that will be a book. at the same time, i do not want to fight any of you guys, i love you all. we have a common goal, to defend and protect knowledge. You have all done very good work, even highlighting some weakness in my contribution to wiki is a good job. You all deserve to be congratulated. here is a solution, i am deciding, let me know if you agree.

• I will cease to list any page for speed deletion for a period of 14 days
• I will not spend so much time on Wikipedia for some time (will be doing some research work some where)
• I will edit my user page to remove any offending material or you do it for me.
• I will continue to defend and protect knowledge at a lesser level
• I will not answer to any criticism, but will appreciate any good advise in good faith.

Thank you guys' 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ironholds has made you a generous offer that will allow you to gain experience under expert tutelage. What will you learn from 14 days' abstinence? Just a thought. Good luck! Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decline his offer. that's kind of him. any other alternative solution. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironholds Esowteric's comment left me concerned, so I digged a bit deeper - here he readded a prod after an IP removed it; this is a ridiculous prod reason; this revert of "vandalism" that (!) added a reference. I'm not sure we can trust him with rollback, at the very least. Tim Song (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, review the reason which was given. there was room for an admin to remove the AFD or another editor, apart from IPs deemed to be used for vandalism. remember, Wikipedia is not a marketing website. Wikipedia articles normally come up first on google search. It will be wrong to direct a knowledge searcher to the website offering the software for sale. I am yet to believe that the article in question was self published. I shall not make this a big deal, I am not here to discuss an individual article. feel free to discuss it on my talk page. thank you for your comments though. they are helpful. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (outside editor) If Ironholds is happy to, he should follow all of his contributions and help him out and revert him whether he likes it or not. The alternative outcome is fngosa will continue bad and questionable edits without learning much and end up being blocked, which nobody wants.--Otterathome (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds ok, but it should be some one else, not Ironholds. 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am offline now, till 11pm. please put down solution/advice below ONLY. Thank you Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How will 14 days not adding tags help? You'll be back in 14 days with exactly the same problems. It's a perfectly acceptable response if coupled with a) reading the WP:PROD and WP:CSD pages, so as to know what is appropriate and what is not and b) trying not to make the same mistakes in future. Otherwise it's pointless. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. And given his apparent inability to distinguish between what is vandalism and what is not, I find his access to Huggle unsettling. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from Fngosa's comments that he doesn't understand or doesn't want to accept that what he's doing is wrong. Fngosa, you should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not just what you think is right, and especially not when several others have warned you that what you're doing is wrong. Anyway, let me make the situation clear for you. Your best option is to get the assistance of an experienced editor to help you along like Ironholds suggested. When that "mentor" is satisfied with your experience and knowledge, you can continue on your own. Just staying away from CSD tagging for 14 days and returning with the same kind of editing is not an option. Otherwise you can learn the guidelines yourself and follow them. However, your edits will have to be monitored for some time (it'll be pretty much the same as the first method I mentioned, except without a formal mentor assisting you) and if you are still doing it wrong they will have to be reverted whether you like it or not, as Otterathome said. If you make the same errors then, or you simply continue to edit this way, you're likely to have some sort of editing restriction imposed on you. You can follow either method, or if you have an alternative we'd be glad to hear it. May I also ask why you are refusing Ironhold's offer? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ve to answer each and every question. 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't, no, but if you couple a failure to edit appropriately with a refusal to properly discuss your work or change your behaviour, then some form of topic ban or a full block is likely to follow. Editors are accountable to the community for their actions, and while one does not have to answer unreasonable questions, being asked to explain why you've inappropriately tagged dozens of pages, refused all requests to cease and desist and refised all offers of assistance is anything but an unreasonable question. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Ironholds, stop bullying others. Freshymail (talk- The knowledge defender 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds is doing the opposite of bullying.- Sinneed 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Possibly of interest as part of the discussion. 2nd account.

• freshymail (talk · contribs · logs)
• fngosa (talk · contribs · logs)- Sinneed 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small issue, since he has not attempted to conceal these two accounts as being different. Running multiple accounts with full disclosure is usually kosher. --Jayron32 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fngosa/Freshymail, now you're being deliberately unhelpful. Learning the policies and guidelines and following them is not optional, it's a must. As I said before, "going your way" will not be accepted. If you are unwilling to learn and keep continuing like this, you will get some sort of editing restriction imposed on you, possibly even a block. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Advocacy: Fngosa, I can see that you are feeling daunted by this process and I can understand that. Do you feel upto representing and defending yourself here, or are you in need of an advocate, counsellor or other representative to share your thoughts with and to assist you in avoiding sanctions and obtaining a happy outcome? Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? If not, please disregard this comment. With good wishes to you, Esowteric+Talk 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using two accounts to comment on this thread. I intend to make Fresmail my main account. On the issue of receiving help from another editor, I will choose some one to show me bits at a time of my choice. I am still learning. As such, I am prone to error. some idiot pointed out that my use of huggle is unsettling! That is rubbish. It is pure attack on an individual which should not be happening on wikipedia. I don't use huggle for vandalism. show me one please! This is a community for every one to use in harmony. I just happen to have different charges to user:Grutness who started this silly thing. He pointed out some wrongs in my edits at my talk page, i responded positively. I can't understand why he brought up this issue here! This issue can well be resolved by Grutness fully participation. May i ask him to leave a message on my talk page and take it from there. If any one is unhappy with any of my edits, i challenge you to challenge me on my talk page. I am sorry, this seem to be becoming a general discussion with poor little solution or advise put down. I can not continue answering each and every question here. please, challenge me on my talk page. Thank you. User_talk:fngosa, 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fngosa, with respect this sort of response is what they term in England "a bit of an own goal": it will hinder rather than help your prospects. It is not up to you to set the agenda or dictate terms here. With regard to challenging you on your talk page, see Talk archive which contains several examples of that process and goes some way to explaining why the serious (not silly) issue has been raised here. Esowteric+Talk 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law: no lawyers allowed. Fgnosa simply seems to think that they get to set the rules, and only abide by them in certain cases. He was offered a high-quality mentor to help him through Wikipedia's policies. He (unbelievably) declined, saying he's follow his rules and all would be ok. If he's unwilling to accept a mentor, and is going to continue to push his own rule set and fails to recognize the disruption they cause, then there is only going to be one possible outcome ... 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer following my own rules on CSD. I am simply helping out with few articles i feel need a bit of editing. You should also recognize that i am contributing a lot on wikipedia, It is completely voluntary, and i am happy to do so. Should i completely stop patrolling new pages? let me know? I will still list attack pages for speed deletion. 09:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked we were all volunteers. I think that you should a) learn Wikipedia's policies correctly b) proper;y edit a few thousand more articles, and then return to any form of NPP'ing - you will have a better idea of what is or what is not appropriate. Oh, and a mentor will go a long way right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend. 09:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that BWilkins is suggesting exactly the sort of thing I proposed in terms of having a mentor. I'm still willing to mentor you, and have experience in (not to toot my own horn) most areas of WP in some shape or form. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh goosh! this is getting to my nerve now!. so, you Ironholds mentor me. promise that you wont be a bully, you know, I protect and defend women and children, so, any bullying of whatsoever wont be in my interest. thank you. 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...okay. I wasn't intending to bully users. That's considered a "blockable offence", not a "mentorship" :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that forcing some one to accept something they ve refused is wrong? 10:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This need reining-in asap, imo. Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forcing you to do anything, and Ironholds or anyone else has not bullied you. Since you have agreed to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, I think we can end this here. You can always ask an experienced editor when in doubt (and I strongly recommend you do this) or ask at the help desk. Once again, keep in mind that you cannot continue in the manner you have been doing so far. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "forcing" here. There is a hobson's choice, but one of your own making. You have a choice between following our rules and leaving. If you honestly don't want any kind of mentorship and think you can go this alone, fine, tell me, but if you end up at AN/I again because of errors similar to those you've promised not to repeat then people are unlikely to be sympathetic now you've refused assistance. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said idiot believes that people who cannot tell what is vandalism and what is not should not have access to tools that allows them to revert edits at a high speed, for reverting a good edit as vandalism is one of the easiest ways to drive away a potential editor. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst noting and respecting admin's proposition to close this issue, if you feel strongly about rollback and the setting up of Huggle yesterday, then here is the link to the granting.Esowteric+Talk 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only responded because of his comment; we shall see if he can tell what is vandalism properly. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does he mean that he already had rollback because of his time on wikipedia?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fngosa means that as he has been using Wikipedia since 2006 that this entitles him to rollback, hence his application for rollback was a mere formality :) Esowteric+Talk 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback has nothing to do with this issue. I assume that this case is now closed. I ve noted down all positive criticisms and will consider them all in my contribution. thank you. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been was incorrectly marked resolved and I was really hoping that the advice offered had been thoroughly digested. And yet almost immediately ...

Flowers in space: Incorrect CSD A2 replaced by another editor with correct template for "needs translation" (and subsequently tagged as A7 by two further editors): deleted diff, User talk page notices.

Ascending power numbers: Article incorrectly added directly to category ("Quick-adding category Mathematics articles by quality (using HotCat)") diff Esowteric+Talk 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the closure, as it was done by the person against whom this ANI was opened. This person really doesn't get Wikipedia at all, and needs a mentor whether they think they do or not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you re stalking me! 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

No, you're not being stalked. This is a public page, and anyone can see who made the edits by clicking on the History tab at the top of the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies, I'm the one to blame for the links to your edits, Fngosa, not BWilkins. It wasn't one of my better ideas. I think the best thing I can do is for me to put down my "dustpan and brush", walk away from this issue and leave you to it. My apologies again, Esowteric+Talk 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is severe POV pushing, edit warring, OR and synthesis from user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn by recursively adding irrelevant/unsourced/OR/synthesis statements into the article. user:Simonm223 was so emotional and in win-lose behaviour while editing that he needed to go out, to have some bike and steam off, as he mentioned here and here while searching for recruits on fringe theories noticeboard, which of course is a violation of WP:Noticeboards.

Timeline:

1- I challenged pseudoscience categorization several times, by first engaging in discussion and then by asking a reliable source from the editors claiming that the project is certainly pseudoscience: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36],

2- While the "debate" continues, user:Simonm223 decides he became too much emotional and takes a break here, but in fact, as I mentioned above, he asks "help" from "like-minded" users by posting that emotional message to fringe theories noticeboard.

3- While the "debate" on pseudoscience issue continues, user:Simonm223 thinks that he/she presented sufficient valid arguments and before publishing his/her arguments/findings/conclusions through a reliable publisher (and referring to afterwards in wikipedia), he adds "pseudoscientific experiment" phrase to the article and justifies his edit by stating in edit summary that "as per discussion on talk page" here. I am sure, we can't find any other superior example over such disruptive contribution. I undo the damage done. user:Simonm223 insists on that his damage should stay. I undo the damage once again.

4- user:Simonm223 adds a material based on an article by physicist Stanley Jeffreys, which is in fact about the first group of experiments carried out by PEAR in 1982 here and here. There is no connection between PEAR and GCP, even if there were a connection, Jeffers' article can not still qualify to exist in GCP article because it is not about GCP. I object the addition of the material and present my argument here. Then I undo here and here

5- Without bothering to present any source, user:Simonm223 distorts the industrial "identification/naming" of the type of random number generators used in the project here. If any reliable source questions such thing, it should be mentioned either in hardware random number generator article or as a separate statement in GCP article. Removing "truly" is disruptive. I undo here.

6- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article once again here. Adds a bit more POV pushing here. I undo here and here.

7- user:Shoemaker's Holiday comes into the scene and removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article one more time here. I revert here. user:Simonm223 intervenes once again here. I undo once again. user:Simonm223 reverts once again here and claims that the irrelevant material provide neutrality to the article. How can an irrelevant, clearly POV push be presented as warranting the neutrality? Removes "truly" one more time here.

8- I remove irrelevant material once again and bring "truly" back here and here.

9- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly", adds the material about Jeffreys' article and adds "pseudoscience categorization" one more time here. I undo by presenting "evidence" on talk page here.

10- user:Simonm223 gives me 3RR warning here and warns some other collaborators here about edit warring as if he was not one of the edit warriors. He/she also "restores page to consensus version" here; what consensus he/she's talking about is another mystery.

11- I give "original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material" warning to user:Simonm223 here.

12- Some other strange ideas from other users arrive with some accompanying accusations and wikilawyering here, here and here.

I believe above collection of misconducts, edit warring, inappropriate behaviours such as adding OR and synthesis by especially user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn should properly be balanced with correct measures like topic ban, block or any other sanction that I'm not aware of right now. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos5557 believes that aliens created the Egyptian pyramids, along with the "face" and a pyramid on Mars. He also believes NASA is covering up evidence of UFOs. Clearly, that is the kind of editor we need to carefully retain in order to make a quality reference work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' beliefs aren't particularly relevant -- what they can show through citations to reliable third-party sources is. More problematic could be if an editor, regardless of belief, doesn't abide by WP:3RR, WP:BRD, etc. Rational skeptics who work in research can be just as "wrong" as believers in the paranormal when it comes to editing practices. Rather than whacking at Logos5557's beliefs, time'd be better spent ensuring the disputed article's content stands up to WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I concur with that point. However the only user who has violated WP:3RR is Logos5557 (talk · contribs) he launched this ANI when he was warned about edit warring against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Timeline of Events

Full page history here

25 September, final edit prior to edit war. [37]

27 September: Logos5557 (talk · contribs) breaks WP: 3RR: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]

27 September, 1912: I warn Logos5557 about edit warring [44]

27 September, 1914: I make my most recent edit to page [45]

27 September, 20:03: Logos5557 warns me about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (disregarding the fact that what I inserted (and left in after first reversion) was all derived from cited WP:RS. [46]

28 September, 00:29 (I have made no intervening edits to Global Consciousness Project) Logos 5557 notifies me that he has opened the WP:ANI here. [47] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me concur with EEMIV's points, too, if that will get some sort of support. I do not agree, unsurprisingly, with your assertion about edit warring. Is there anything wrong with launching an ANI after some sort of magical warning? I take Hipocrite's comment as a "declaration of concurrence", as an "endorsement of the case" since he/she concentrates on my "beliefs" instead of addressing the facts of the case. Logos5557 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I guess being the second (and third ... which is a minor edit to my previous comment) link in point 12 makes me involved despite not being notified. On to the OP's points:

1. Please read WP:Edit warring. There is no WP:TRUTH exception.
2. A neutral notice to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard is perfectly acceptable as a means of attracting outside eyes to an article.
3. One editor alone cannot edit war, but please see WP:Vandalism and avoid describing other editors' good faith contributions as "damage".

4-11.  Stop edit warring and call a request for comment. Notifying another user of the three-revert rule (and that it is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring) is considered evidence that that user is aware of the issue. Please avoid templating the regulars, as it is more likely to escalate the dispute and rigidify positions than just talking it out on the page dedicated to that purpose. A friendly (or at least neutral) request to usertalk that points at an issue on articletalk you wish to be addressed is fine.

12.  Logos5557, please consider that if a significant number of other editors think that you are wrong, then you should at least evaluate your points. Edit warring will not achieve consensus. Incivility will not achieve consensus. Throwing around wiki-acronyms will not achieve consensus. Talking it out should lead to consensus, though it may not match your opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not notifying you and other editor (voiceofreason) personally, about this ANI. I thought it would be sufficient to place a notification on article talk page for those who would like to get involved, here.

1- I guess you should read WP:Edit warring, too. It states here that "If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption."

2- I don't think that Simonm223's notice to fringe noticeboard was neutral at all. Fringe noticeboard is not a "military trench" for "recruits" to get some rest and to look for some relief.

3- "Damage" happens when a user base his/her edits (which he/she makes in article) on discussions (actually Simonm223 based on his personal opinions) made in article's talk page, without presenting the sources verifying the information added, because that contradicts with very fundamental principles of wikipedia. I'm just calling a spade a spade here.

4-11- I believe my "trials" in article talk page are sufficient evidences of "trying to resolve the issues by communication".

12- "A significant number of other editors"; can you define "significant number" and guidelines on which numbers should be accepted as significant in which cases? Is 3 enough? 4? Or is this some sort of confirmation of your non-neutrality in this case. Logos5557 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does not apply directly to talk page discussions. So long as it stays within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I am free to express my opinion on a talk page. If I can not find a RS for my opinions and put them onto the actual article page then, at that point, these statements enter into the WP:RS policy realm. Am I honestly being attacked for holding an opinion in talk space? Can any indications be made that I edited the article in any way counter to Wikipedia policy? Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object against the qualification POV pushing concerning this edit. That is simply a corrected and improved summary of the source. Logos5557 has a clever way of turning things around. He makes us believe that PEAR is something completely different then Global Consciousness Project, and that because of that, the criticism of Jeffers does not apply, therefore reverting it, reverting it, reverting it. But PEAR is an acronym of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab from which the Global Consciousness Project originated. This is simply his way of taking out a major point of critism, namely the critisism of Jeffers. I can imagine that Logos5557 does not like what Jeffers is saying, because it pulls away the very foundation underneath the Global Consciousness Project. It were Jahn and Dunne from PEAR who made the false assumption that in a cumulative random number generator the baseline hovers around the zero line. But it doesn't, just like in coin flipping the chance does not increase for heads, after a large sequence of tails. It is this fallacy that crawled into the project as a means to distinguish between normal random and abnormal random behaviour. And the random number generators are the bricks in the building of GCP. Pull them out, and nothing is left. So Jeffers has to go, and Logo5557 does anything to achieve that.

As for the term random number generator: there are in real life random number generators and pseudorandom number generators. One generates random numbers, and the other doesn't. But what are truly random number generators? In what way do they differ from random number generators? In nothing, therefore this is a pleonasm, only suggesting some devine extra quality that is not there. In literature, truly random number generators only point at flaws in practical designs of previous random number generators, or are part of advertisement language. So call it edit-warring, but I just like to get the text right.

Is the Global Consciousness Project pseudoscience. Yes, because the solid criticism of Jeffers, as far as I can see, was never taken up. Yes, because independent scientist, May and Spottiswoode, looked at the GCP's flagship, the 0911-attack, and concluded that despite the hailed results of GCP, no anomaly was there. Yes, because there is no independent confirmation of GCP's results. May and Spottiswoode advised to, at least, split up GCP's world wide network into two halves, so if an anomaly would occur in one network, it could be tested in the other network. GCP, as far as I know, never took that up either. And even if they will, they will not have nulled design flaws (Jeffers), and they will not have nulled the possible bias of human interpretors, because it would still be the same team with the same prepossession that would do the analysis. Only when an entirely different and independent team, with different equipment comes up with the same result, we may be talking about science. Untill then it's not. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jan Arkesteijn for confirming my assertions of OR and synthesis. GCP has certainly no connection with PEAR, and with Jahn and Dunne. Do you see their names in GCP team list? Even if they give any support/contribution to GCP, criticisms should be about GCP studies/experiments/papers, to be included in GCP article. Why didn't GCP never take Jeffers' "solid ciriticism" up; because it is not related to GCP. Why Jahn and Dunne didn't answer Jeffers? I really don't know. but my guess is; they publish a paper in 80's, somebody wakes up after 20 years and criticise their paper to "rebutt" whole PEAR. I wish they "answer the call" some day if they haven't retired yet. You present May and Spottiswoode as if they had crumbled "GCP's flagship". This is not true, either. I didn't search extensively (may be some people from GCP have published a detailed paper on their criticism as well) but GCP replied their criticism here [48]. What Simonm223 and Jan Arkesteijn do not understand here that we can't synthesize things out from sources (things which those sources do not say), and put in wikipedia articles. There are two main types of random number generators; hardware (or truly random) and software (or pseudorandom). When "truly" is removed, it becomes unclear which type is referred to. It seems I should better have launched this incident on administrators noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the above response to defend myself against your false accusation of POV-pushing. If you look at that edit you will see it is not.
Now you accuse me of Original Research. I went through the article and there is no contribution of me in the recent or not so recent past, that could be named Original Research.
Could you please stop this harassment!
In the talkpage I asked to stop the pointless discussion that was going on, only to let myself drag into it for just a while. I am not going to continu that discussion here. There is only one person that is creating a lot of fuss, and that is you! Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 launches a proposal for merge here, I guess in order to justify his/her addition of Jeffers' article about a PEAR experiment into GCP article. Logos5557 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Issues

Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of WP:CIVIL some related to this issue and some not. The tendentious debating, peppered with personal insults and slights is making it very difficult to dispassionately edit any article he is involved with. This is an ongoing issue with him. Can we please wrap this up? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to state where are the proofs that I breached WP:CIVIL? Logos5557 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of wp:civility here, here, here and here, many of his responses to these concerns have been flippant and/or rude. His conduct on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project page show much of the same behavior. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the diffs for my flippant and/or rude responses? By the way; you should click "prev" link in related history page and present the resultant link as diff here. Logos5557 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: I've made absolutely certain User:JBsupreme is aware of this AN/I discussion. He removed the notification from his talk page. [49] --Tothwolf (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two previous AN/I reports and this is still unresolved. Since the first two reports, User:Miami33139 has continued to wikistalk/wikihound and has even attempted to bring others into their own efforts. I seem to have come to the attention of Miami33139 due to tagging articles for the WP:COMP workflow.

The first AN/I report that I made on September 15th can be found here. The second AN/I report that I made on September 17th can be found here. Miami33139 refused to participate in the second AN/I discussion.

Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [50] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [51] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

Furthermore, Miami33139 seems to consider the lack of action over the last two AN/I reports indication that their actions are acceptable. See [52]

Timeline of interaction

• Prior to the What wp is not revert below, It appears Miami33139 began digging into my contributions due to my work on the WP:COMP deletion tagging workflow.
• Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 for What wp is not [53]
• Got involved in the Davfs2 AfD [54]
• Modified User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance which was userfied during the Comparison of Prolog standards compliance AfD that I had recently participated in. [55]
• After !voting in the Davfs2 AfD, they began mass prodding a number of articles relating to Linux file systems [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] and subsequently nominated one for deletion when it was de-prodded. [62] (kept)
• Nominated NexIRC for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [63] (merge/redirect)
• Nominated What wp is not for deletion at RfD. [64] (kept)
  • It was at this point I made the first AN/I report. Two days later after realizing they were mass-reverting User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits I made the second AN/I report. It was at this point that Miami33139 stepped up their wikistalking efforts to a whole new level.
• Got involved in the Parchive AfD [65] (kept)
• Got involved in the ProSystem (Emulator) AfD [66] (merge/redirect)
• Got involved in the Parchive DRV [67]
  • I decided at this point to try an experiment and tag (see articles' talk pages) and !vote in a number of WP:COMP articles that were at AfD as a test to see if Miami33139 really was without a doubt monitoring my contribs. They were.
• Celemony AfD [68]
• Elecard MPEG Player AfD [69]
• OneFinger AfD [70]
• Fortitude HTTP AfD [71]
  • Miami33139 then decided to nominate more articles I've worked on for deletion and attempted to CSD G8 a template I had created for Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
• Nominated Psotnic for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [72]
• Attempted to CSD G8 Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC [73]
• Nominated ZNC (IRC bouncer) for deletion at AfD. [74]
• Nominated Bip IRC Proxy for deletion at AfD. [75]
• Nominated PsyBNC for deletion at AfD. [76]
• Nominated Psyced for deletion at AfD. [77]
• Prodded KoolChat. [78]
• Filed a WQA against me here. [79] [80] (Note this diff, which also shows that they have been monitoring my contributions. [81])
• Got involved in the QuickPar AfD [82]
• Made a borderline personal attack on my talk page after having been told in the WQA to disengage. [83] (removed by another editor)
• Canvassed and attempted to bring User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill into their own efforts. [84] [85]
• Got involved in the SmartPAR AfD [86]
• Prodded Quiet Internet Pager. [87]
• Nominated Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC for deletion at TfD [88]
  • Note Miami33139 appears to be attempting in the TfD [89] to get all the subtemplates removed in an attempt to damage Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, which they know I've spent months so far restructuring and expanding.
• Nominated Quiet Internet Pager for deletion at AfD. [90]
• Prodded rcirc. [91]
• Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [92]
• Prodded Bottler (IRC client). [93]
• Prodded Pork client. [94]

I do not believe Miami33139 has any intentions of disengaging as they were asked/told repeatedly in the WQA [95] [96] [97] and the above diffs and Miami33139's contribution history should speak for itself.

In addition, after these edits by User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill on 5 of the AfDs and the TfD Miami33139 initiated, it appears as though there may be some off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry occurring. I do not believe there to be sockpuppetry involved but given Miami33139's attempts to bring these two editors into their own efforts against me, [98] [99] I do not believe these !votes cannot be considered coincidental.

• Psotnic AfD [100] [101]
• ZNC (IRC bouncer) AfD [102] [103]
• Bip IRC Proxy AfD [104] [105]
• Psyced AfD [106] [107]
• PsyBNC (2nd nomination) AfD [108] [109]
• Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC TfD [110]

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This timeline of edits does appear to be worrying, and I think Miami needs to explain the apparent correlation between the two edit histories quickly. If none is forthcoming, some remedies spring to mind, such as interaction bans. Comment from Miami is, however, what is needed at this point. For transparency, Tothwolf notified me of this thread as well as at least one other administrator - the notification was neutral in tone, and I am unaware of any significant involvement with either editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was almost certainly notified because of my article rescue of UMSDOS (AfD discussion), which tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist. I found it quite easy to find sources in that particular case. Possibly my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer) — a little bit of AFD patrol to try to eke out a good rationale that a closing administrator can hang xyr hat from — is relevant, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, you rescued the UMSDOS article by changing the topic to FAT Filesystems and Linux. I was perfectly happy to remove my nomination with the expansion from a single topic to an umbrella topic. This does not "tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist" because you changed the subject matter to find sources about. You changed the subject, managing to include the previous info, and I withdrew the nomination. That is good faith from both of us and fairly normal process. This has nothing to do with Tothwolf either, yet you seem to be using it here to hammer me about bad faith in a discussion about Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. The subject matter did not change. It expanded, and sources were found by the simple action of sticking the word "UMSDOS" into a search engine. As I said, I found that quite easy. And since I didn't mention doing this, either in the AN/I discussion or the AFD discussion, it was tacit by the very definition of the word. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to go back to my regular editing pattern of working on technology, Linux, and IRC-related articles, and doing occasional deletion tagging for WP:COMP when other editors get bogged down but I'm currently unable to do so as something as simple as a vandalism revert or a minor template change will cause User:Miami33139 to AfD said article. [111] [112]
    Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [113] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [114]
    I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.
    Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [128] [129] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.
    Their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits are as equally worrying and it seems as though my raising concerns over those removals may have been what led Miami33139 to step up the level of their actions against me.
    Given the history I see in Miami33139's contributions, I personally would support a restriction for Miami33139 barring them from using any sort of JavaScript (monobook.js, Greasemonkey, etc) or other forms of automated editing tools as it would appear that they have a long history of misusing them.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I originally discussed some of these issues with User:Miami33139 following his report to wp:wqa. I was disappointed in that, even as I was advising him his best bet was to disengage, he was taking concrete steps that appeared likely to unnecessarily escalate tensions with User:Tothwolf. Like Fritzpol, I was troubled by the number of instances in which User:Miami33139 tagged articles for deletion only hours after User:Tothwolf had last edited said articles. At some point, the sheer frequency of those occurrences being happenstance begins to stretch the assumption of good faith to its limits. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, as I haven't been able to go through all of the evidence, but User:Miami33139 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celemony ([130]) before Tothwolf made any edit ([131]) on the talkpage. This by no means makes all of the evidence wrong, but it shouldn't be taken at face value. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck from list above, good catch, thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with you and assuming bad faith? I didn't talk to them off-wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You were supposed to notify everyone involved in the report. Your issue is with Miami so leave me the hell out of it. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were involved in this within the past 24 hours at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Tothwolf. You were involving yourself in it, by creating reports on this very noticeboard within the past 48 hours, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Help with editor assuming bad faith and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#CSD-G4. You are currently involved in this within the past 48 hours with a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination), where you seem to be suffering from a severe case of "I'm not listening!". Crying that you aren't involved (since you clearly are) and that you didn't know this was happening at WP:AN/I (when you started two of these discussions) isn't really going to wash. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified! How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start this report? My first post here has nothing to do with Tothwolf. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably by the very method that you demonstrably did know. You are, after all, here. And you were already here on this noticeboard, starting discussions yourself about this. This is a discussion of your interactions with Tothwolf and others. Wikilawyering over formalities that your very presence here clearly demonstrates to be needless is, as I said, really not going to wash. Nor, indeed, is your claim that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Help with editor assuming bad faith is not about Tothwolf, given that it clearly is. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said that the csd-g4 discussion wasn't about this (which is the first one). I found out about this discussion on accident because I thought that the issue with Tothwolf was over. I am not wiki-lawyering. I have been participating in software AFDs for a year. I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it has been hours with no replies and with how this discussion is going, there will most likely be no conclusion like most posts at ANI. The person that started the report hasn't bothered to reply in the last several hours and his recent edit here was to fix a spelling error. No one besides me has replied in the past several hours. Uncle G was only able to respond to me with false claims and not to Miami's long post down below. Quantpole and J seems to be done with the discussion and if that is, it was a longer time ago. No one else besides us seems to be interested in this discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

Tothwolf is crying wolf. Note [132], [133], [134], are not about me. Tothwolf has been accusing JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and probably others of bad faith, retaliation, and targeting him in the last several days in deletion discussions. These accusations from him are getting stale.

It may be tl;dr, but I have thoroughly answered this here: User_talk:Miami33139#Wikistalking. I also requested intervention here, Wikipedia:WQA#User:Tothwolf, over the weekend, because Tothwolf is accusing multiple people of harassing him. Most of this "evidence" is nothing more than saying I have been involved in PROD or AfD discussions for software that is not apparently notable. It has nothing to do with him and I have been doing this for a year! except for the fact that he works or is somehow involved with a company that makes products that have to to with IRC so he feels invested in this area. Any examination of my deletion discussions over the last year, will show you that this last week has been absolutely routine.

To the extent it is about him, I looked at his contribution history when I first encountered him, in a public deletion discussion opened by someone else. I opened the category of Linux file systems, opened all the articles, and if they didn't have any usable references, I tagged them in various ways. I didn't look at Tothwolf to find them. I can look back to June to find my first interest in deletion/notability of the IRC category. I didn't find this via Tothwolf. Note that the suggestion to look at more IRC articles [135] here, did not come from Tothwolf. When he accused me of stalking him, I did not open his contribution history afterwards, but found the same articles and discussions via JBsupreme, Joe Chill and just opening the AfD page.

The most interesting things I have looked at have been things in AfD nominated by other people, not Tothwolf, then opening up the category of the article, or the contribution history of the nominator. This is an example, not involving Tothwolf, that AfD discussions happen totally rationally, in good faith, with my ability to recognize a fixed article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS in his absence.

Since Tothwolf has a COI in this issue, and his "keep everything philosophy" about software is diametric to mine, it is just plain destiny that we will butt heads in this arena. Since he puts the Computing project wiki-banner on articles en-mass, there is no doubt he will have edited articles I start looking at. This is an open and transparent project without article or area ownership. Contributing to Wikipedia is under the assumption that contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that includes deletion. It's part of the Wikipedia charter. There is no personal crusade against him.

This is too long already. Miami33139 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added point by point discussion of each bullet in Tothwolf's list, about half of which do not actually involve him: User:Miami33139/nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's surprising that what Tothwolf is doing is considered acceptable. After my ANI post ended with him calling me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, and admitting that I didn't break any policies but was only breaking his belief about them was over, it started up again with him calling me a meatpuppet. I don't understand why people think that this is acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's surprising that people get so pestered by users that they get chased off the project. The only difference between this and the high-profile case is that a phone hasn't rung yet. I'm not commenting on the merits of the case (though I am of the opinion this seems like harassment), but I would wisely advise all parties to use common sense in regards to each other. Toth, Miami, TSC, etc. That means no harassment, no stalking users (TSC), and no accusations of harassment. Disengage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of wikistalking and harassment

I did some additional WP:COMP workflow tagging (see article talk pages) and it brought additional wikistalking evidence. The workflow bot has not updated yet (it won't update for approximately another 24 hours) so everything below was clearly taken from my contribs. Note the timestamps on the edits.

• JollysFastVNC (tag) [136] [137] [138]
• Monit (tag) [139]
• Nemu64 (tag) [140]
• MyPaint (tag) [141] [142]

Since User:Theserialcomma has been attempting to stir things up with regards to this AN/I report and Miami33139 [143] [144] (as they've done with other things in the past), the sudden !vote by Theserialcomma in the JollysFastVNC AfD was not a coincidence and their contribs [145] are quite telling.

User:JBsupreme is also becoming increasingly aggressive in his attempts to escalate things since I started this AN/I discussion.

• Got involved in the Quiet Internet Pager AfD User:Miami33139 initiated (see above) [146]
• Endorsed the prod of rcirc that User:Miami33139 placed (see above) [147]
• Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [148]
• Nominated E2compr for AfD after seeing my de-prodded and addition of a merge template as part of the WP:COMP workflow. [149]
• Nominated BitchX for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. [150] (The nomination of this one is actually downright silly as it has references and we can easily find plenty more things with which to improve this article.)

With regards to the two AfD nominations, JBsupreme does not edit at all in this area. The E2compr and BitchX AfD nominations were pulled directly from my contributions and are blatant attempts to escalate things. Note that JBsupreme has an extremely long history of this type of behaviour with other editors and AfDs.

I also want to point out Miami33139 immediately got involved in the two AfD nominations JBsupreme made. If this isn't meatpuppetry, it is clearly some form of tag teaming behaviour. [151] [152]

Just before I posted this, User:JBsupreme decided to take things even further.

• Nominated Coolsmile for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. [153]
• Mass-tagged a large number of IRC client software articles as CSD A7 (and A7 does not apply to software). [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per User:Mikaey[[160]], any admin who wants to see another admin's perspective of tothwolf's previous behavior, just check out User:Mikaey/Tothwolf) (only viewable by an admin, but Mikaey gives permission for it to be undeleted (here: [[161]]), Theserialcomma (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [162] for a few important details that Theserialcomma left out (and would prefer not to talk about). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly just you assuming bad faith on everyone that wants articles that you think is notable deleted. Everyone you notified about this added section seem to be done with this ANI report because of their editing history. I don't need to read the deleted subpage above to know that it's about your bad behavior from the wording of the serialcomma's comment. This ANI report has gone against you. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I'm still trying to AGF with some of your actions and if I were you, I'd leave this one alone. Theserialcomma's past actions have been well documented by both myself and others and if they really are intent on it, a full AN/I report can be made. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been AGF the whole time when all of my comments were civil. That was the only time when I assumed bad faith towards you. If you can do it constantly to me and Uncle G did it twice, why can't I get one comment like that in? With your recent post on Miami's talk page, it seems like you don't suspect him of anything anymore. If that is true, do you think that this should be closed? Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, to answer some of your questions, I think part of the problem is that in many of the recent AfDs your comments have not always been completely civil. I did note that you backed off this situation with regards to the actions Miami33139 was taking (completely opposite of what JBsupreme did) which is the main reason why I'm still willing to AGF. It currently looks to me like you got caught up in some of the things Miami33139 was stirring up without realizing what was happening.
As for any issues between you and Uncle G, I don't have anything to do with that and I can't really comment on it.
If you were referring to this message that I left on Miami33139's talk page, [163] I guess I'm still trying to create something good from a bad situation. I thought if Miami33139 were going to suggest article mergers (which I assume they saw me do on e2compr/ext2 (which User:JBsupreme followed behind me and nominated for deletion), the responsible thing for me to do would be to explain how to use the {{mergefrom}} template since they had overlooked it while applying several {{mergeto}} templates to other articles that I had on my watchlist.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What comments weren't civil? I tried to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination) as civil as I could which was hard with you assuming bad faith. When an editor asked me if I had a conflict of interest in the OneFingers AFD and had an edit summary of wikilawyering, that got taken care of with him making one post on my talk page. When an editor that didn't understand AFD !voted keep because it was verified on the Leafpad AFD, I told him about the rules without any uncivil comments. When an editor tried hard to keep OneFinger by his opinion, it was solved by me and other editors explaining the rules to him in a civil way. Saying "I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources" isn't uncivil. On the other hand, you called me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, and attacked me for having a different interpretation of guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009: (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Own Editor instead of the OneFinger AfD? Where I see an issue is you attempt to browbeat other editors who express their opinion. There are no rules that prevent editors from !voting however they like in AfD. In the end, if a large group of editors forms a consensus that it benefits Wikipedia to keep an article that doesn't quite meet the notability guideline on its own, they may do so. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline can be and sometimes is overruled by consensus and the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy.
Joe, I'm willing to admit I may have been wrong in referring to you as a possible meatpuppet of Miami33139 so how about we just bury the hatchet regarding our disagreements and work on improving Wikipedia? This is using up both our free time and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be working on fixing up some articles. As I mentioned above, I'm willing to AGF and assume you just got caught up in the mess Miami33139 and JBsupreme have been causing. Given the patterns of edits linked above, you can probably understand why I originally brought that up as a possibility.
--Tothwolf (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to !votes that I disagreed with which is very common in AFD. If I was doing it to save an article, most likely no one would complain (like you for instance). I was not being a bully. If you have problems with me replying to keeps, you have a problem with almost everyone in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and that can be seen as browbeating other editors and actually isn't that common. You don't have to agree with other editors but you should at least respect their opinion as to why something should be kept or whatever and not try to force them to change their !vote by referring to the notability guideline and such. I would appreciate it you would stop implying that I want to "keep" everything that goes through AfD though. You have no idea how many articles I see go through the various workflows that have been prodded, sent to AfD, etc that absolutely should go. I think the difference between you and I are is I tend to be more focused on the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in most AFDs that I participate in, people reply to another !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued on his talk page. While Miami33139 may have attempted to bring both he and JBsupreme into their own efforts, [164] [165] I do not feel Miami33139 was effective in their attempt with Joe Chill, therefore I do not feel Joe Chill was attempting to act maliciously with regards to his above linked edits.

This still leaves the issues with regards to User:Miami33139 and User:JBsupreme currently unresolved.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption/harassment 2009-09-30

User:Miami33139:

• Mass-AfD'd more articles [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]
• Trying to get access to a deleted subpage [172] [173] (Note: this is the same subpage User:Theserialcomma keeps trying to get)
• Participated in the AfDs User:JBsupreme created [174] [175]
• Continuing to be abusive towards other editors in AfD [176] [177] [178]

User:JBsupreme:

• Added a bogus speedy deletion template to WeeChat [179]
• Mass-AfD'd more articles [180] [181] [182] [183]
• Initiated a RFD for LeetIRC [184] [185] [186] [187]
• Added a {{prod}} to the transcluded Template:Latest stable software release/ccorp-irc template [188] in an attempt to get Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients deleted via prod. (See Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 September 2009)

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request some assistance at article Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The problem is with User:Fifelfoo. Please check older edits and reverts with other editors at this article.

Today he removed referenced content from the article per "it is a primary source" (The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents" written by Csaba Békés, Malcolm Byrne, János Rainer published in 2002 page ref.: 198). After this I added another reference (the official webpage of "THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION" which is sponsored by the Hungarian government and written by scholars. However User:Fifelfoo removed it as non-RS, although that article has 203 references. After this, I reverted it and I added another reference written by Ferenc Glatz, historian, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but User:Fifelfoo removed the references with the comment: "If the Institute was so proud of the content, they would have published it on paper. Cite the paper". With his last edit he taged the references... After I warned him for vandalism, reference removal he called me a vandal...

I checked his userpage ("He researches labour history and socialist history"), talkpage (articles you might like to edit "Structural Marxism") and his contributions (like "Mass killings under Communist regimes") so I think we have a WP:COI, POV and WP:OR here.--B@xter⁹ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologise for the removal of the Glatz source edit, it happened accidentally when trying to correct an edit where you added the IRH source and Glatz source at the same time. The IRH source is unacceptable due to SELF and being a non-academic publication of an academic institute (non academic publication modes is where academics put their more curious theories, and scholarship which cannot be known to meet the standards of their scholarly obligations due to lack of peer or scholarly press review). While the IRH is a scholarly institute, it isn't a scholarly press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content dispute and the dispute over what constitutes verifiable references/citations, these two editors — Baxter9 and Fifelfoo — are engaged in an edit war. I was going to place {{3RR}} warnings — a number that they have both exceeded — on their talk pages, but since it has escalated to ANI, I was not sure if that would still be appropriate. Further, the editor who filed the ANI complaint did not place a notice on the other editor’s talk page, so I have taken the liberty of doing so. Finally, while reviewing the edit war between these two editors, I noticed the edits of a third, brand new editor — Tyrker — who has edited only on this article. I reverted one of his edits as it deleted material accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, a deletion done without an explanation. —  SpikeToronto  18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is Fifelfoo correct that only documents that have been published in physical (i.e., paper) form may be cited on Wikipedia, notwithstanding that copies may be available on the Internet? In other words, is Fifelfoo correct that any source published solely on the Internet, regardless of how reputable the academic institution that web-published it may be, cannot be cited? What then of such notable sources as The New England Journal of Medicine, or The New York Times, that sometimes have internet-only articles/essays/editorials? As I understand it, Fifelfoo, in his edit summaries, is saying that an Internet source can only be cited if it is merely reprinting a paper-based publication. By that logic, The Huffington Post could never be cited, nor any of the myriad websites maintained by politicians and pundits. I believe that this issue lies at the crux of this dispute and the answer to this question is vital to the nature of sources cited throughout Wikipedia given that Internet-only sources are found throughout its millions of articles. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently not true. reliable sources may be print-only, web-only, or print-reproduced-on-web. There are lots of sources on the web that are unreliable, but not because they are on the web. Are you sure that is what Fifelfoo is claiming? Could you include a diff that shows where he claims that only sources that appeared first in print can be counted as reliable? Without an actual diff, it is hard to understand if your characterization of his arguements are accurate. IF he is making that arguement, he is wrong. However, I don't know that he is actually making that arguement unless I can see the diffs myself. --Jayron32 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, he actually says it twice both times, in edit summaries. If you bring up the history of the page you can see the two comments - the diffs are already cited above. He also has some other strange views - you can't cite old documents "The following source is unacceptable (non-RS) due to age:" you can't cite textbooks "Requires verification that its not a textbook / textbook publisher:" and you can't cite anything that Fifelfoo thinks wasn't written by the right kind of historian "The following sources are unacceptable (non-RS) as they are not the work of historians, and thus produce the SYNTHESIS problem:" Oh, and you can't use any primary sources. (all of these are in his long section about FA on the talkpage, which he seems to have posted more or less all in one lump, sorry) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I think that it is a great shame that one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia is currently bogged down in an edit war. A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this is an editor with a unique perspective of what constitutes verifiable references/citations and that he may begin to undo articles throughout Wikipeida based on that unique perspective if he is not made more familiar with Wikipedia’s position in this regard. The probability of this is all the greater given his position statements made both in his edit summaries and on his user page, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out. —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the third editor in the mix, would it be appropriate to use CheckUser to determine if s/he is a sock puppet of one of the two editors engaged in the edit war? —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made 2 reverts, not more which is not 3RR. One of the reverts is a "revert of vandalism" (reference removal) which per wikipedia 3RR rule doesnt count, so actually I made 1 revert. (my first edit, added 1 reference, my second etit, 1th revert, added another reference, not a revert, my second revert, no more)

"A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end" No, it wont. Because actually I am not involved in this and I am not interested in this topic. But other editors are. As the member of wikiproject Hungary I was informed about this, and I only stoped at the article to check things. Because every Hungarian knows that Corvin-köz was a major battleground, It was easy to find a reliable source. So I checked my books, and I added 1 reliable reference which was removed. Thats all. But the point is what Elen of the Roads said above: Fifelfoo rules this article and removes what he doesnt like. As I mentioned above, his first move was, to challange the new reference...--B@xter⁹ 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue which Elen of the Roads and I have raised regarding Fifelfoo’s interpretation of WP:RS, there is a WP:OWN issue vis-à-vis this editor? —  SpikeToronto  20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time when I "met" Fifelfoo, so I dont know his edit pattern, but it is clear to me, that this "style" of editing (this source is not good bla..bla..bal..that source is not -RS..bla...bla..bla..) embarrass and frightens away users who want to make constructive edits. This is some sort of ownership. (from OWN: "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile...or wages revert wars...A common response by a primary editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project..." I am sure, that primary editors will leave this article if this continues... Just check this revision history and comments...)--B@xter⁹ 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+:Furthermore, I find it interesting that -it seems to be- that this user knows everything about wiki rules, including "how to cite your sources" and he also gives advices, but when it is about the victims of the revolution, he quickly forgets about this and he removes the content instead of using {{cn}} although this event has its own article on the Hungarian wikipedia.--B@xter⁹ 21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly appreciate it if you didn't grossly mischaracterise my edits. Citation needed is not an appropriate on a Feature Article, think about why. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you’re adding point of view to the allegations? Thus, the issues are: WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. I have to be honest, while all of these are important, because the editor in question’s position regarding verifiable references/citations is so unique, I think that the WP:RS dimension of this ANI is the single most important issue for the Administrators to resolve. It goes to the very heart of the Wikipedia project! —  SpikeToronto  22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe SpikeToronto is a neutral editor acting in good faith here. Managing to mischaracterise RS so rapidly in relation to a feature article, and "helpfully" summarising my position for me. Could you not put words into my mouth, thanks.

The Institute of Revolutionary History is a credible academic institute in Hungary. The Other user is attempting to cite a chronology from their website. Academic units draw a rather sharp distinction between academic publications, and non academic publications. Similarly, Historians do not publish in a chronology mode. IRH publishes, regularly. Additionally, as the document is in Hungarian, verification options go to machine translation because it isn't the product of a scholarly peer reviewed text. FA criteria involve a higher sourcing demand than start articles. Part of this demand is that the best kind of RS be used. Interestingly the best kind of RS are available, and the other editor made use of an acceptable text: one published by the Hungarian academy in a scholarly publishing mode.

Additionally, I do not appreciate the allegations of editing in bad faith because of my article interest. I suggest people look at my edit history.

The article is currently in Feature Article review because of major sourcing issues (it is constructed out of a primary source, and does not follow the standard scholarly discourse, instead being a SYN of various primary sources).

I find it a shame that a feature article on a non-Anglo/Western European history topic, which has been extensively written about in the scholarly press, is cited out of spurious ephemera and primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ownership, I found a Featured Article with some very very disturbing sourcing, which fails to cite the major scholarly works, and is overly reliant on a UN report that drew from about 110 refugee respondents. So I laid out the problem on the talk page, and requested an article review. Yes, that's ownership, to establish the encyclopedic debate to move forward on a topic.

Regarding the perverse suggestions of bias / involvement because of my decisions to edit certain articles, I suggest people look at my editorial involvement at Mass killings under Communist regimes which has turned the article around through a slow consensus building process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this is all to do with it being a featured article, and Fifelfoo's view of what is and isn't acceptable on a featured article - which is kind of barse ackwards to my way of thinking. Fifelfoo says above that the use of citation required templating is not appropriate on a Featured article, use of machine translation not appropriate, primary sources not appropriate, wrong kind of historian not appropriate etc etc. Wrong way round surely. Find an article that has perfect sourcing, grammar, layout or whatever is required to meet the FA criteria, and put an FA sticker on it. Not, put the sticker on it whatever state it is in, and then start chopping out stuff that doesn't meet your singular view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have never laid eyes on the article in question before today, and never edited it before today, I believe that Fifelfoo will not be able to make out his claim of bias on my part. Where I do have bias is in adhering to WP’s guidelines regarding verifiable references/citations. Perhaps the reason Fifelfoo singled me out for an accusation is because of my zealous request here for Administrator involvement to clarify this issue. Fifelfoo’s interpretation of verifiable references/citations is truly unique. I fear its taking hold of WP. Should the prevalence of this unique view grow, I fear the undoing of articles, especially those with Feature Article status. When can we expect an issue that goes to the heart of each and every article on Wikipedia to have some Administrator involvement and be resolved? —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elen. The Article is currently a FA. What would you have us do when non-FA content is inserted into an FA? The article is at FAR, because I am deeply concerned that its sourcing quality and coverage do not meet current FA standards.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please note that Elen of the Roads’s first comment (way) above was inserted between what was a contiguous posting of mine. Thus, my COMMENT (way) above was meant to be immediately following my QUESTION (way) above. The COMMENT was not added after Elen of the Roads’s first comment; it preceded it. (See this edit.) —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. First post was responding to Jayron, not to anything SpikeToronto said. The timestamps should show the sequence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Fact

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is currently a feature article. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is under Wikipedia:Featured_article_review here Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956. Featured article review is an improvement process. I nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for feature article review as a result of significant sourcing problems, which I raised on Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and at the Featured Article Review. User:Baxter9 and User:Fifelfoo disagree about some of the contents of Hungarian Revolution of 1956

This are the facts as I see them. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My statement of the case

As a current featured article, new material added should meet the Feature Article criteria for sourcing, including the highest form of reliability, verifiability, and avoid being Primary or Tertiary sources. User:Baxter9 is expanding Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in useful ways, but many of Baxter9's edits have been inadequately sourced. In my opinion a primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable. Creating an article from Primary sources is SYN/OR. Doing this to a featured article is immediately removable. Regarding the Corvin Alley fighters, Baxter9 has been attempting to use a webpage from the IRH. The IRH as an academic institute has the capacity to publish scholarly sources in a scholarly manner. By citing an IRH article not published in a scholarly manner, and one (which to my pitiful Hungarian) is a chronology of events, rather than narrative history (the standard Academic form of history), it is not RS. I removed this source and the uncited sentence. Baxter9 then provided a superior citation (in addition to the poor citation), one produced by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation (using the template is not the issue). Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation, but its sufficient to indicate that the material is sourced. A citation requires attribution to the specific Author involved, I doubt that a work of this length with 5 personal authors and an institutional author is a single monograph: its a work with chapters individually authored and an editor. The provided citation doesn't indicate the English language title translation (a common courtesy). A machine translation "The Chronicle of the Hungarians" (In English Chronicle has poor connotations in disciplinary history, I suspect the machine translator is poor in this regard) indicates that this isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956: a non-optimum citation. Provide the chapter, for instance out of 700+ pages, its likely that 690 is the Hungarian nation around 1956... its likely the actual chapter is a 56 chapter. [This is exactly why I get tetchy about low quality sources: it breaks VERIFIABILITY].Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to Baxter9's content. Claiming Corvin alley is the most esteemed group of fighters was a long bow to draw (Csepel and the Hungarian student/youth militia which briefly retook Parliament square are clear counter examples). Claiming it was the strongest fortified position is much less contentious, though I still want to see a correct full citation for the work cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV. I demand Featured Article grade RS. This means the best kind of RS available. This, as an academic topic, does have the best kind of RS available: RS from the academic community produced in the peer review and scholarly publisher mode. We don't need to settle for anything less, and producing a history not from the RS secondary sources is SYN. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OWN. My editorial involvement has been to revert Baxter9's uncited, or unacceptably cited contributions; and, when Baxter9 presented cited and RS cited contributions, to not revert. I am currently waiting on a large scale review, and have not edited the article substantively while I'm awaiting that Review process to conclude. I do not believe this is OWN: I like Baxter9's content additions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV in relation to my editorial outlook and article involvement. This is a disgusting assertion about my editing and I would like any people who made it to retract it. I encourage people to peruse my editorial history in this matter Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Internet sources. The issue isn't the modality (trees versus bits), as much as, IRH does not publish in the scholarly mode online, and is not a scholarly publishing house in itself. Citing JSTOR is fine. Citing a SELF published website, where an academic institute is not publishing in its academic mode, isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, & I know it's a side issue, citing JSTOR is not fine. You cite the journal in which the work was actually published, and then add the convenience link to JSTOR where you read it & where people with access to it can read it also. Essentially everything in JSTOR was first in print, and has print as the version of record. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I was gesturing at the difference between Scholarly Publication, and mere utterances of a scholarly research unit. A better example would be that insta-peer review archive that physicists / mathematicians have established as an example of an online-only scholarly peer reviewed non-traditional mode. That's a scholarly publication. Fred's Maths Blog on Department of Foo at University of Bar isn't scholarly publication, even though Fred could well be a scholar, and his blog could be wonderfully scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fifelfoo! This is what I wanted. I misread you as saying that something published only on the Internet, and never in paper form, was unacceptable. This was a problem for me because, in my world, there are some medical publications that, while peer-reviewed, only publish certain material online. Plus, some of the data presentations (e.g., charts, graphs, etc.) are, in essence, presentations of primary material as they are mere statements of clinical results without analysis, the analysis being in the text. Thus, I (mis)took your position to be that in a wikiarticle of, for instance, a medical nature, a wikieditor would not be able to present the chart — because it is primary data — nor could s/he present the analysis of the data since it was never published in hardcopy form, notwithstanding its having been peer reviewed prior to its online publication. Thank you for straightening this out for me! —  SpikeToronto  04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we reached the same page about trees/bytes versus scholarly/non-scholarly modes of publishing. PRIMARY materials are no good for verification and they are unreliable sources. PRIMARY materials are good for illustration, and for humanising, or explaining reliable sources. Lets imagine three scenarios: Sue conducts research "On the horrible disease of Wikipedia editing" published in the peer reviewed scholarly journal with a high citation count (we're talking medical science here) "Journal of Encyclopedia related Medicine". Sue's journal article includes a chart, "Data on Wikipedia editing diseases". If you cite Sue's chart, you're reusing PRIMARY materials. If you cite Sue's findings that's great. If you cite Sue's findings, and illustrate them with the chart, that's great and better reading. Primary materials should not be cited for Verification purposes. Articles should not be written out of primary sources. Articles should be written out of secondary sources. Where Primary sources are appropriate they should be used to illustrate: much like graphics and photos illustrate but do not convey the basis of an article (generally, there's always an exception). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My statements in relation to SpikeToronto's involvement here

I perceive, very strongly SpikeTomato'sSpikeToronto's [no offence intended, the colour red must have triggered it 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)] question above to be a mischaracterisation of the issue, which he presented before I had an opportunity to respond. That's within acceptable behaviour, but a bit uncivil. More worrying is the fact that people expect low quality RS to be acceptable on Featured Articles. History as a discipline does not esteem textbooks, works published 60+ years ago (generally, some specific examples) due to disciplinary change. History as a discursive discipline constantly improves its analysis, and old works are like old science: built on poor premises and poor evidence when compared to that available today. This, "Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue..." "So now you're adding point of view to the allegations..." is whipping up a dispute, rather than working towards consensus. I don't believe I can discuss this in good faith with you, as you've displayed an interest in extending the dispute rather than working towards consensus. (I still believe I can work with Baxter9 and Elen of the Roads regarding this; we may disagree but I feel confident in their attitude towards this incident being one of consensus building. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I am not interested in the article on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, per se. I truly hope it maintains its Featured Article status and that you and the other editors achieve consensus. My primary interest in this ANI is your interpretation — as stated in your edit summaries, on your user page, and here in your postings to this thread — regarding what sources are and are not acceptable. It appears to be a restatement, a rewriting, of the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and customs regarding reliable sources. Thus, in addition to wanting the article to maintain its FA status and for a consensus amongst it editors to be achieved, I await a position from the Administrators on the verifiable references/citations issue since it has ramifications far beyond the article in question. If your interpretation of the reliable sources rules/guidelines is correct — and it may very well be — then it will have a dramatic impact on those of us who do recent changes patrol. That is why I think it is one of the most important matters raised at ANI recently. And, you should want this assessment from the Administrators too, Fifelfoo, since it will provide an extremely useful clarification vis-à-vis reliable sources with which we can all ensure compliance throughout Wikipedia. —  SpikeToronto  04:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the administrator's job to judge verifiability, reliability, or citations: they are, like so much else, a content dispute. See WP:RSN for sourcing disputes. For Primary sources, see WP:RS#Overview "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." For my general frustration with people using primary and tertiary sources to write articles, using edited collections of primary sources, using unacceptable material claimed as scholarship, failing to reference the major works of a field, and picking the eyes out of unscholarly utterances indexed by google scholar, books or search; and for the poor quality of articles resulting, see the frustrations arising in this dispute (though the other editor is not an example of the problem, as he is expanding a section of the article that has been omitted as the article was written synthetically from primaries). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Source quality requirements in Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria's 1c), which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication. This is a higher hurdle than non Featured articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get this from - being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<quote> Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like. But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source, they can be supported only by a "high quality" reliable source. What do you think high quality reliable sources mean in relation to articles in academic disciplines? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance).Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS" are not used to substantiate claims, see RS. University level teaching material in discourse based fields, ie, US style synthetic textbooks, are either source books which contain the occasional scholarly essay, the essay is generally citeable through its original scholarly publication, or primary which cannot substantiate claims per RS. The BBC is not a historian, and can't generate an acceptable high quality RS narrative because its not a historian. What do you call a feature article that is allowed to no longer meet featured article criteria? I think your attitude is ass backwards, using second rate narratives synthesised out of first year texts, primaries, and newspaper articles is a great way to produce original research which bears no relationship to the scholarly discourses that mark out the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This view would appear to prevent us ever having a featured article on (say) The Boston Redsox, JRR Tolkien or the Titanic, because I'm not aware of there being that many peer reviewed academic sources on any of these three topics (Shippey for Tolkien I suppose). I think you are taking WP:RS to an extreme where it was never intended to go. I appreciate this may not be the forum to discuss this, but would like to see further discussion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is strictly in relation to areas covered by Academic disciplines where the coverage is sufficiently dense. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Zinc Marginalism are all adequately covered by a dense academic literature. In fact, the articles are the academic literature, there are no discourses worth making encyclopedia articles about on these topics outside of the academic discourse. Boston Redsox may be an example of a work who's coverage will be mostly popular. The Simpsons probably was worth covering from non-academic RS, but is probably going to shift in the next five to ten years to be best covered by academic sources. But say, Australian Cricket should have its core historical narrative formed out of academic sports history (which does exist of it), prior to going to books produced by ex-Cricketers. Some areas which may not have source density amongst academics might be fringe Marxist topics, such as Left Communism, or other similar "edges". But even then, there are a couple of good works on Left Communism from academia which can form the core structure, before retreating to second tier RSes for secondary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction. Hobartimus (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you retracting your characterisation of my interpretation and as pollutive and the negative implications regarding my character. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you're claiming I'm polluting this discussion because I am making an ambit claim in a free-rolling discussion where other editors have specifically asked me to advance an interesting view? Anyway, to address your substantive issues: If any topic can be sourced at the highest quality level, it should be sourced there first. Article composition should be dictated by the highest quality sources. Perhaps you're not familiar with the effect of OR in the humanities where people pick the eyes out of google scholar, finding unevidenced throw away lines in unrelated journals whose articles are published non-peer reviewed by non-specialists. Quite often these "reliable sources" are not only included (as they should be, if they form something more than a FRINGE in terms of density of writing, rather than critical opinion), but quite often they dominate articles where the body of scholarship suggests other conclusions entirely. Sourcing of topics should be dictated by the description of the topic in the highest quality sources, with secondary quality sources supplementing, but not driving the narrative of the article. Why does Feature Article Criteria draw a distinction between high-quality sources and other reliable sources? The article which started this debate, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, is currently under Featured Article Review. It has a deep over reliance on a UN report published in 1956, instead of relying on the large volume of scholarly accounts. Writing a historical narrative out of documents from the time is the production of a secondary source. Wikipedia is thankfully not a tertiary source written by erudite scholars on academically driven topics, but we can do better than being a secondary source written out of primaries. As I've been repeatedly saying, the poor quality of sourcing on Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the fact that the most prolific English Language author in the field Bill Lomax is missing, has a deep impact on line-by-line verifiability, article focus, construction, and weight. This is because there are reliable sources, and "high quality" reliable sources, a specification listed in the Featured Article criteria, but left up to individual editors to implement. The standard for high quality in the disciplinary practice of history, and in most academic fields is relatively clear and transparent. Much as an article should not be written out of primary sources, and then be salted with google search eye-picked secondaries, articles which have a scholarly literature and debate should not be written out of poor, short, unreviewed popular works, and then salted with google scholar eye-picked high quality reliable sources. The reason this should not be the practice, is that lower quality reliable sources misweight, fail to engage in quality work, misquote, misemphasise, overstate, understate, and often provide an article framework that bears no relationship to the broader literature. The should indicates I'm stating an ambition, not a policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem

I've never run into Baxter before, and only recently run into Fifelfoo at the renamed Communist genocide page. Fidelfoo has a tremendous problem with tendentious editing, trying to dominate the article by coming up with frivolous citation and RS rules.

I've found myself in an embarrassing situation there - he's been reverting my footnote formating - and in frustration I've reverted his footnote formatting reversions twice. We also have differences on substantive matters where there were also reversions. In short, I estimate he has 6 reversions in 16 hours just on Communist genocide, and I've had 4 reversions in the same period. This is obviously a problem for both of us. All this while this ANI is going on. It's pretty obvious that Fidelfoo needs to do a bit of self-evaluation. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a typo there, the third letter in my username is an f (though an amusing typo!)

I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable. Verifiability is the quality of the citation provided.

Smallbones is editing outside of a hard won consensus at Communist Genocide, and not engaging in any of the attempts to improve their contributions (tagging and in article commentary, reference to talk page and built consensus). For the consensus: Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A summary of the consensus editorial direction, and warning about content lying outside of that consensus. For Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Early theories para attempts to discuss before reverting (before even thinking of reverting content under the consensus. For Smallbones problematic edit Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Dewey, Koestler, Conquest. Smallbone's edit is the first paragraph in the (only) section of a heatedly contested article that directly discusses the article topic. Repeated AfDs and reviews have called for the article to address its topic out of a discourse in scholarly literature. Smallbones has been asked repeatedly to substantiate that the sources they use are academic, involved in the scholarly debate of, specifically: general, universal, or cross-cultural causes for mass killings in multiple communist states. Sadly, they've not expanded or contextualised their edit to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Smallbones' characterisation of the "troubles" he has encountered with sourcing on Mass killings under Communist regimes, and concur with Fifelfoo's. I do think Fifelfoo is quite strict with sourcing, but that may not be a bad thing, and has little to do with the mass killings page, where dodgy sourcing and POV has been a real problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My questions and remarks

After quick reading the comments my questions and remarks are:

1) Is it true that if I use the "most commonly used form" of {{cn}} instead of full than my work is "inadequately sourced", "so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation" or it downgrades the reference ("Your reference wasn't quality.") "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS" so it can be removed? "Incorrect" citation really makes a reference non-RS? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

2) "hasn't gone through an academic press"? A reliable source MUST BE from academic press or academic?

3)If a book has a chronology section, or written in this style (note, that my reference is NOT a chronology) for example (from a reliable sorce's chronology list "Albert Einstein was born and died (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) Means I can not use this book as a reliable source or reference because the information is from a chronology secttion or the book was written in that style? Where can I find this rule?

4) If the source is reliable written by scholars,"but they aren't a scholarly publishing house" it is unacceptable and it can be removed?

5)"Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation" It is the mots commonly used form of {{cn}}. If I use this, than my source becomes non verifiable? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS or at Template:Cite book?

6)"The provided citation...isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956" This source is peer reviewed, written by historians (like Ferenc Glatz, Hungarian Academy of Sciences). So my source is non reliable? I cant use it? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

7)From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations...1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (^[1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)" Again: 1. and 2.

8)"primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable". Why is this a primary source and unacceptable? It was wrote in 2002 and the fact that it uses documents doesnt mean that it doesnt "may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" and researches made in the XXI century. It should be re-added. Actually it is a secondary source. From WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source" "* Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, (in this case contemporary documents) often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

9) "if not being TERTIARY which is again inappropriate for an encyclopedia" From WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

10) "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

11)"You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance)" Totally agree.

12) "I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction." Totally agree.

13) COI: It looks like I am not the only one here.

14) Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> "I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like...But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" "being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added." So what kind of sources can be used at featured articles? Is "But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" correct?

The same source problems at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2

• Decline concern at the slab quotes (if it makes me feel TL;DR, and is more than a screen length, its a concern). Paraphrase in prose while cutting length, only use the most pertinent and telling sections of the letters as quotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

References are in unacceptable format; locations are missing for almost all works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete might be a more accurate word. Locns added. –Moondyne 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With a history article, an incomplete reference is an unacceptable reference. Its somewhat like noting the margin of error, statistical correlation, or other basic academic structure of disciplinary acceptability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the FA criteria for locations to be listed for references. While it's always nice to have locations, it is not a requirement for FA. Opposing an article solely for that lack is unactionable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link and quote that? Location is an essential element of source verification, particularly where publishing houses publish UK and US editions in the same year under the same house, which may have different paginations, and demanded by most style guides in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Given that this is a Sports History / Social History FAC, and the standards of history are highly demanding as regards quality citations, including location. Location is also remarkably easy to fix, easier than fixing missing or incorrect alts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that neither WP:V nor WP:CITE make any requirement that any citation system is required. Note at the top of WP:CITE, that the example given is lacking a location. You'll also note that the FA criteria don't prescribe any particular citation style, so editors are free to chose a style they are comfortable with, as long as its consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

or here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1 "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS, makes reference unverifiable. As a Tertiary source articles must be named and signed by an author, "Tucker, Spencer E.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary; Greene, et. al., Jack (2005). World War II: A Student Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1851098577. OCLC 57311334." // ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 995 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 613 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), pp. 846–847. If this Encyclopedia isn't a scholarly encyclopedia, I hope they've cited their secondary sources so you can locate them." or here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/George F. Kennan/archive1 "Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you! "--B@xter⁹ 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Baxter9. You'll want to fix the quote of YellowMonkey, as it appears as though he's signing something here, when you're quoting him from off page.

1) Verifiability. Failure to provide full citation information means the claim cannot be verified: Author, Title, Title of work contained in, Editor of work contained in, Edition, Series, Number, Issue, Location, Publisher, Year, Pages of the work, Page cited in the work. This is not an exhaustive list, but you need to fully explain Authorial identity (many of your additions have conflated editors with authors, the authors of chapters with the author of a book), Title, Containing text and its provenance, Utterance details (Location, Publisher, Year), pages of the work referenced within the larger work, pages specifically connected to cite.

2) Reliability is a sliding scale. FAs have a concept of "High quality" reliable sources. From WP:RS you can see that the list of items are organised from most to least reliable. The most reliable sources are academically published. When claiming that a source makes a statement in relation to an academic discipline, there is an expectation that academically published sources will take priority. When a source is an utterance of a group of Academics, the question is: why did they utter in a non-academic manner.

3) Chronologies are incredibly problematic works, compiled generally by non-specialists, when they are compiled they omit large features of the causal demands of the discipline of history and substitute linear progress. Making a claim about a death date from a chronology is a reasonable use. Making a claim about a complex situation, such as the defence of Budapest 4-10 November from a chronology is not sustainable. Chronologies do not have the causal, purposive and interpretive argumentation to back them up.

4) Yes. Scholars have more than enough opportunity to publish in scholarly presses. Scholars emitting utterances claiming to be academic not in the scholarly publishing mode are instantly suspect, and should be engaged in close detail. When they're online, in Hungarian, no translation is provided, and IRH has a vast opportunity to put out books, it becomes immediately suspicious that they are publishing in a non-scholarly mode because the work does not meet the standards of scholarly publication. (Evaluating such a suspicion requires, guess what, full citations, and access to the material in a language other editors can read.)

5) The Hungarian Chronicle as you cited it: lacks a year, lacks a location. Originally you claimed a corporate author and five coauthors. For a 700ish page book. Do you know how suspicious this is? I have searched the web for a TOC listing, but there isn't one available. I strongly suspect this is an edited collection, with Glatz as the lead editor, and the other editors editing chapters. Your citation should then be [Chapter author], "Chapter title" [translation of chapter title into english] in A magyarok krónikája [The Hungarian Chronicle], (Place: Magyar Könyvlkub, year): [chapter-pages]; [cited pages from chapter]. You can use a different citation style but that content is required for verification. Some editors omit place. Omitting the other elements would make your citation Unverifiable.

6) You should be citing IRH's "Hungary 1956" or, IRH's "Defence of the Corvin Alley" or, a work specific to Hungary 1956. The Hungarian Chronicle is a survey history, a history of the entire nation. Its lack of specialisation makes it a less desirable source (even though it is still "high-quality"). Using the best possible source is the best possible response. In the discipline of history that means a work as specifically focused on the Article Topic as possible, or on a subsection, for instance, the November 4-10 defence of Budapest. I admit that I had become snippy when I accidentally reverted the Academy of Sciences' Hungarian Chronicle. I am again sorry for that, and the removal of the Hungarian Chronicle in that edit was accidental, I was intending to remove either the Békés source or the IRH website.

7) "High quality". What does High quality mean in a history article? Does it mean websites not published external to an institute in a non-academic publishing mode? Does it mean inadequately cited chapters in a national survey history? Does it mean randomly quoting a source book?

8) Békés. Its a primary source because the title is "a history in documents" and you didn't specify you were quoting an introduction or a contained scholarly essay. Documentary source books are compilations of primary sources. If you had bothered to list a chapter title, and were citing an essay rather than a primary source, then you wouldn't have been reverted. This is why full citations, not using some template, but actually including the required information to locate and verify the actual quoted section of a source is essential. A primary source contained in a sourcebook is still a primary source. A primary source contained inside a scholarly monograph as a slab quote, appendix, picture plate, or reading is a primary source. Primary sources cannot substantiate claims. In the discipline of history, asserting a fact about past occurances is a claim requiring verification. Primary sources in history are useful to colour and to illustrate, like the use of photographs, maps, and multimedia content.

9) Read Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History which very clearly discusses what kind of tertiary sources are appropriate: signed encyclopedia articles by academic specialists. Its kind of like eating "named meat".

10) Yes, exactly, this is why I reverted your citation of Békés.

11-12) No comment required.

13) Wikipedia is not HUAC. For the COI information, please see Talk:Libertarianism, where an editor who is upset that scholarly peer reviewed reliable sources disagree with her personal vision of an article made suggestions I have encouraged her to retract.

14) Exactly. WP:FAC changes the rules of the game. For Start-A class either project or general requirements, which demand reliable sources, rule. Of course, I would argue that high-quality sources should be used, and that articles should be built out of the debate in mainstream scholarly sources (ie: the best secondary sources). At Feature Article status the rules change. Suddenly claims cannot be substantiated by reliable sources (read the FAC at 1c, its rather clear). Only "high-quality" reliable sources can substantiate claims. In a field with a wide ranging academic secondary literature, which is on an academic subject, the meaning of "high-quality" is clear: scholarly output published in the scholarly mode.

14) kind of bleeds on into other issues. But note how I'm criticising "A Student Encyclopedia", ie a tertiary according to WP:RS/examples; and how I'm questioning the Kennan text book (further replies at Kennan's reviews may be illustrative, Kennan, due to its full citation is more clearly only questionable rather than being obviously anything.

thanks for your points Baxter9. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 blocked by Sarek of Vulcan for socking and generally being a nuisance --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user Shivlingam seems to have awarded himself every possible barnstar; even on created for Jimbo himself. Is there something that should be done about this, or can anyone award themselves any barnstar as and when they wish? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The rollbacker Redtigerxyz tried to remove them but Shivlingam just reinstated them. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It looks silly and is obviously disingenuous -- so, let's let this editor make it clear to the community that this is his/her standard for behavior. We'll know this editor has matured more toward the community's standards when he/she removes them him/herself. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsars are serious business after all. Really, what should've drawn more attention is this. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, then there's the fact that he signs posts as "owner wikipedia" (e.g. at Wikipedia:Help desk#date format) and creates subpages like User:Shivlingam/owner WIKIPEDIA. I think someone's got a crush. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an administrative issue. Suggested solution: add trout and cluebat to the user's awards. Durova³²⁰ 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he did with the barnstars was copying the code from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars (including the comments at the top of the page) to his own talk page. See also this response to ukexpat's attempt to get him to stop posting unhelpful comments to the Help Desk. All in all does not look like somebody who is here to write encyclopedic articles, but so far his behaviour is more nonsensical than actually disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. If the user wants to award themself barnstars, they can go nuts, but they should not copy others' barnstars - they are signed and would misrepresent the positions of the users who granted them. –xeno^talk 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Durova³²⁰ 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I also agree with Bonadea that this user might not be here for the right reasons. –xeno^talk 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If problems worsen that can be dealt with. A lot of people make a few missteps at the beginning. When those aren't too serious they get a few chances. Durova³²⁰ 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to have a bloodhound-like nose for ducks and socks, but something isn't right when the user's first edit consists of adding a {{who}} tag. However, I've seen this before, so it is possible that I may be overlooking this, but the other edits just cannot be ignored. MuZemike 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Also welcomed him/herself.[189] Has been editing Saffron terror.[190][191][192][193] On 20 June 2009 Nishkid64 semiprotected that article with the summary "editing by banned users".[194] Shortly before that, an IP who edited the page was tagged as a possible Hkelkar sock.[195][196] Would someone who knows the background on that situation please weigh in? I'm unfamiliar with Hkelkar and can't really assess whether this is a lead or a red herring. Eyebrow-raising, though. Durova³²⁰ 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. Not Hkelkar, not with those comments about Modi. Quite the opposite, it would appear. But still hilarious. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Durova³²⁰ 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hilarious YES disruptive NO .I added those barnstars as they are available under GFDL I can use them and any signature which I like WP:GFDLLemme live in peace .BTW why are users stalking and reverting my edits (Properly referenced) on Saffron terror PEACE OUT --owner wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clue-bat anyone? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SP OMG .Is that a threat ?--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At it again [197]. And the "owner wikipedia" thing is going to confuse the newbies, especially if the editor participates on the HelpDesk. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the signature is problematic. –xeno^talk 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's GFDL complaint I can use those barnstars on my page You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details.--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable - "Do not misrepresent other people", in particular, awarding yourself the barnstars those people had awarded to someone else. –xeno^talk 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit wp if you do not want your edits to be edited or copied mercilessly --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of removing the barnstar mess again, as it is still just another broken cut n paste job of jimbo's user page, with the "thanks for running the wiki!"-ish platitudes and all still intact. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar is nothing more than an illustrated "thank you". How is it possible to "abuse" something that's essentially a decoration? Does anyone ever get elected admin based on how many barnstars they have plastered on their user page? Not bloody likely. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather unfair to create the appearance that those named, specific other users awarded User:Shivlingam those barnstars. If they were plain barnstars copied from templates, no big deal, but s/he's also copy-pasted the signatures and comments of the people who originally awarded them to Jimbo. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gonzonoir. And, judging from their edits, User:Shivlingam is not a new user. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars are trivial, sockpuppetry is serious. Hence I have altered the header. If this were just about copying someone else's barnstars, though, I wonder what specific rule were being violated? Plagiarism, perhaps? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstars are an attempt to mislead other editors, as is the sig used by Shivlingham. Both the "owner wikipedia" and the "I do not own WP" used here only serve to make it harder to track an editor's contributions.

Wikipedia relies on collaboration, and this sort of game-playing impedes collaboration, so I suggest just blocking Shivlingham until zie gains enough clue to stop playing disruptive games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs I agree that they are trivial, and if this person wanted to go to WP:BARN and award himself every single one, I'd fully support that. But copying and pasting the un-transcluded text from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars crosses the line, IMO.

BTW, who is this user a sock of? Can we see some links and sockpuppet templates added to the account? Tarc (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No administrator action is required here, so please direct further comments to the VPP thread to keep everything in one place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has been adding inappropriate links to Template:Infobox book in articles about books, specifically adding OCLC links to articles that already have ISBNs. These links are redundant, as the OCLC links to Worldcat, which is already one of the options given by the ISBN link via book sources, which gives the reader a choice of where to locate a book. The documentation for Template:Infobox book says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", whereas this bot is specifically designed to add an OCLC when there is an ISBN. The approval process for this bot didn't have any discussion about whether it conforms to policy and guidelines. For a full discussion please refer to yesterday's conversation between User:Gavin.collins and the bot operator here (which the bot operator deleted without the issue being resolved) and the further conversation between the bot operator and myself today. User:CobraBot has refused to stop the bot's operations on the basis of these requests, so I would request that the bot be blocked pending a proper discussion of whether its actions are desirable, as did not take place before it was approved. I'm not sure about where this further discussion should take place, as the bot approval pages seem to have very low traffic, so would like some advice from readers of this page as to where this should happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I this this is a serious issue because of the huge scale of the linkspamming. I have raised this issue both with Cybercobra and I am disappointed that he has not responded to my concerns. I have also raised this issue at Village Pump, as I am doubtful about the benefit (if any) from using Worldcat as a cataloguing tool. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness: my most recent response to Gavin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that as of slightly before the start of this thread the bot was stopped for unrelated reasons. Upon notification of this thread, the bot was marked inactive (see [198], [199]) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended "pending an WP:ANI thread"[200]. If that was changed to "pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it" I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bot Owners Noticeboard which is usually monitored by a large constuim of bot owners as well as members of the Bot Approval Group might be a better starting location for this discussion since the bot would of had to been of approved for this task before it was ran. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat more widely something I already mentioned to Phil, the Bot Policy suggests Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval as a possible venue for discussion regarding the bot task. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BAG can be of help, because I don't think WP:BAG operate provide any form of governance over bot activities; there is an oversight issue that now needs to be resolved here, as the bot's behaviour is controlled by an individual editor, Cybercobra. He may have obtained clearance to create all these direct links to to Worldcat from BAG, but it appears that the issue of linkspamming was not either not considered or understood by BAG in this case. Cyberbot may have created hundreds of links in good faith, but the current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation to use a specific external source to expand an article are inappropriate. There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam, but I think the mistake lies in linking directly to the Woldcat site, even if it is well intentioned.
I propose that not only should linking to the Worldcat website cease, but that it should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date. I am not saying that the Worldcat number should not be used or added to articles (if that is of any benefit?); rather I am proposing that the hundreds of direct links to their site be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'll quote a relevant earlier comment I made: Alternative ways of "fixing" the problem {of supposed/possible linkspam} would be to: (a) disable the OCLC field {of the book infobox} from generating a link [possibly with an exception if no ISBN is provided] (b) disable the OCLC field from displaying at all if an ISBN is provided [thus making it silent metadata].

WRT the |oclc= parameter, I think any consensus on the proper usage of it is/was either nonexistent or quite poorly documented to say the least when I filed the BRFA. Therein (that is, on the proper usage of said parameter) is certainly a policy discussion worth having. As is the issue of if / under what circumstances the infobox should hyperlink the oclc parameter. And such discussions would certainly have bearing on the bot itself as its current task consists of interacting with instances of the infobox, and specifically said parameter thereof.

Therefore, may I put forth a proposal to end the wikidrama:

1. Whereas, Cybercobra shall request the BAG withdraw/revoke authorization for CobraBot's current bot task.
2. Whereas, all 3 parties shall jointly start and foster a general (by which it is meant, involving more than just the 3 parties) discussion or pair/series of related discussions on the topics of:
   1. guidelines regarding when the oclc parameter should or should not be filled in
   2. whether or under what circumstances the book infobox should cause the oclc parameter to generate a hyperlink.
3. Whereas, the details of where to hold and advertise said discussions shall be worked out betwixt the 3 parties in an amicable and not unnecessarily delayed discussion, on a different forum than this (ANI), to be held immediately following the entrance into force of this gentlemen's agreement.
4. Whereas, to avoid any further disputes, said discussions (excepting the one in #3) shall be not be closed by any of the 3 parties themselves.
5. Whereas, any similar (here meaning that its direct or indirect result is to add external links) future bot task undertaken by Cybercobra and CobraBot shall require a fresh BRFA, of which the other 2 parties shall be specifically notified, and any such task shall comply with the consensus(es) reached at the discussion(s) outlined in the following clauses, and no BFRA shall be filed for such a task until said discussions have concluded.
6. Whereas CobraBot's contribs are left intact, under the logic that modifying the book infobox template itself through said discussion(s) is a much easier, less labor and server-intensive way to centrally de-link OCLC#s if such is decided;
7. Whereas, this ANI thread is deemed closed and the 3 parties go back to productive editing, modulo participation in aforementioned discussion(s).

This proposal is merely a draft and is negotiable. Feedback/questions/reactions? I can elucidate the technological bits of point #6 in particular if there are any concerns. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about my proposal? It seems to me the only way to get rid of the linkspam you have created. No one asked you to create linkspam in the first place, so if seems to by you who should be responsible for making amends. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cybercobra bot does not add links to the WorldCat site. It simply populates |oclc= in the {{Infobox Book}}. Any linking is performed automatically by {{Infobox Book}}. Therefore, all links could be removed simply by changing {{Infobox Book}}. Also, the appropriate place for any complaints about the links is on the Template's Talk page. That is also the appropriate place for a discussion on how and when the |oclc= parameter should be used. HairyWombat (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, it is not the template's fault, nor the bot's fault that all of these links have been created. Cybercobra gas created these links and is responsible - the buck stops with him. If one or more of his proposals can achieve what I have requested, then all well and good. But if they can't, then my proposal still stands. In either case, we still need Cybercobra to effect a remedy. As editors, we are responible for own actions, and blaming other editors templates does not absolve us from this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HairyWombat completely encapsulated my position and what I've been saying all along; your complaint is more overarching that just the bot; this is plainly obvious looking at your proposal, which has much farther implications than just CobraBot: "I propose that [...] linking to the Worldcat website cease [and that such linking] should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date" (emphasis mine). Your complaint is that the infobox even has an OCLC# field in the first place and/or that it hyperlinks that field; logically, one would reason that you would still have complained somewhere regardless of how the fields came to be populated. Well, I'm not Czar of infobox book and I was not the one who way-back-when added that field to the template in the first place, nor was I the one who changed the infobox to generate hyperlinks when the OCLC field is populated. It's just that my bot, in good faith, with BRFA-approval, mass-adding data to the infoboxes, brought the fact that the infobox has and links the OCLC parameter to your attention. Your concerns about the infobox are valid ones, but not directly relevant to the bot, whose "linkspam", can, as HairyWombat explained, be entirely and centrally undone with just one edit to the infobox. Or if the field is not removed, but instead new guidance about its use is added, my bot would be obligated to comply with said guidance. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I really don't see the issue here. The bot is adding valid information to the infoboxes. Nothing wrong there. The issue seems to be with the infobox itself, and as has been noted multiple times, every single external link is eliminated via a single edit to the template. This is a simple content dispute, and should be discussed at the talk page for the template, or at the current village pump discussion. If consensus is to remove the OCLC field, then remove it, problem solved. Resolute 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the argument about the infobox, but this is not relevant to discussion here - I am soley interested in the problem of linkspam created by Cybercobra. An analogy to this situation would be Flyposting, whereby the flyposter uses existing billboards as a platform unauthorised advertising posters. This is not dispute about the billboard per se (in this case the info template), as there is probably nothing wrong with it. The issue under discussion is whether or not the links created by his bot constitute linkspam (Cybercobra is silent on this issue), and whether or not any should be responsible for cleaning it up. You know my view on this, so what say you, Cybercobra: are the links to Worldcat linkspam or not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the template, as it is perfectly valid to have an OCLC link when there is no ISBN available. My problem is with this bot adding an OCLC when there is an ISBN, which is redundant - the ISBN link already allows the reader to choose to go to its Worldcat entry as well as to many other sites, so there is no need to add an extra link to Worldcat. Just because a parameter exists in a template and is valid in some cases it doesn't mean that it is valid in all cases, and this bot adds it in precisely those cases where it is invalid. The documentation for {{Infobox book}} says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User indef'd for now. Let him vent but leave him alone until he's done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Immediate attention is required to this. WebHamster created this page, since consensus is blocking him from adding this bullshit to the Richard Gere article. This is a blatant WP:BLP issue. I nom'ed for CSD, but don't know how that'll turn out. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't call edits bullshit. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these edits pretty much are bullshit. Nothing bad about the person making them, but the edits themselves are utter WP:BLP-violating shit. --Jayron32 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Gentlemen, this is a public noticeboard. There are children and ladies here. Would you please mind your motherfucking language? Durova³²⁰ 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. That's classic. I'm gonna go kegel now. Law _{type! snype?} 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only allowable if you upload educational video. ;) Durova³²⁰ 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little edit reversal going on now at the Richard Gere article here WebHamster has inserted a link to the gerbil page 4 times now and Crotchety Old Man is removing . Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it. It's a BLP nightmare and WebHamster is skating around consensus on the Gere article by creating this one, and adding the link to the hoax page. Law _{type! snype?} 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And under which CSD category did you speedy it? This should be taken to AfD at least. Oh and how about taking COM to task both for not informing me of the CSD request or the not notifying me of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)--WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under CSD category WP:IAR. This is a clear BLP-violation, and should not remain at Wikipedia under any length of time at all. I endorse Law's deletion of the article. --Jayron32 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was it a clear BLP issue? It wasn't promulgating the rumour, it was explaining and debunking it. It was adequately referenced and totally neutral. --WebHamster 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G10 ... G3 ... take your pick. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP, and especially WP:COATRACK, as well as Loaded question and Association fallacy. Even the idea that refuting the rumor is a BLP violation here. "I am here to state that John Doe has never beaten his wife." Use of a denial is not an acceptable means of of sneaking a BLP-violation of this nature into Wikipedia. This is a clear WP:COATRACK issue. Creating an article denying the truth of a rumor is just a backdoor method of getting the rumor exposure at Wikipedia. Somethings are not appropriate to discuss, even if only to deny them, because the mere act of denying gives them too much coverage in itself. --Jayron32 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left WebHamster a note informing him of this discussion and a 3RR note regarding the edits at Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Law _{type! snype?} 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left Crotchety Old Man a 3RR note regarding his reversals on Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth protecting Richard Gere and the gerbil or would it just lead to Richard Gere and the Gerbil?- Sinneed 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...it would then lead to "Richard Gere and the gerbil named "Bob" (I would assume that a hamster might know the name of a specific gerbil) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting The Gerbil and Richard Gere, and countless other permutations. This one can be resolved by dealing with the source of this stuff, but not by trying to swat each fly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to protect it because I'm going to assume that WH will not recreate it. And yes, Jayron was correct. CSD IAR. Law _{type! snype?} 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx3) I already salted those two, but you're right, we could play whack-a-hamster all day. In any event, we don't need articles for these two, but revert me if I erred. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go mate. I knew AGF was total bollocks. --WebHamster 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not a shield for obviously asinine editing behavior. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a long word for someone who obviously doesn't understand its meaning. --WebHamster 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree, WebHamster. But if one person thinks an idea is a good one, someone else will too. I know I intended no assumption of bad faith.- Sinneed 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time we've seen childish, ridiculous behavior from WebHamster, right? Anyone got ideas on how to apply some clue? Friday (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Backdoor"?? "Asinine"?? Come on, have we not given enough publicity to the supposed location of said gerbil named "Bob"?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's a rumor that OTRS has already received a complaint from "Bob" that we're violating WP:BLH (biographies of living hamsters). Bob has a family and a reputation, after all. Durova³²⁰ 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added WebHamster to the Twinkle blacklist. This is not vandalism. I'm also thinking that some sort of community restriction may be necessary.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how such a thing would be worded, other than something vague like "Don't act like a 12-year-old." Would a simple block for edit warring (repeat as needed) be simpler? Friday (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked multiple times already, and just said on his talk page that he ain't changing anytime soon. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No editing anything remotely related to a living person?I don't know, the only evidence I have of misbehavior is what I see in front of me, and I can't see me supporting or executing a block based just on a limited bit of childishness. --Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switching back to serious mode. I've defended WebHamster before, but his posts to this thread don't look good. AGF is not a license to fork a BLP violation against consensus, misuse Twinkle, and brush off community concerns. No matter how many jokes are within easy reach, there are basically two rational solutions: either WebHamster accepts the Clue being offered by multiple people and promises not to walk this path again, or else a longer block than previous is appropriate--in the hope that will curb the behavior where persuasion hasn't. This time it isn't an R-rated photo on your userpage, dude. It's about a real human being and a very nasty rumor. Not the place to go when you already have a track record of problems with walking the line of appropriate conduct. Durova³²⁰ 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it more than satisfies WP:DE at this point. Railing against the man keeping him down and being "blunt" are poor excuses for repeated BLP violations. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaaaaaaaaaaand WebHamster told me to "go fuck yourself" after I reverted his attack on Tznkai and warned him for it. → ROUX ₪ 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw diddums. --WebHamster 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebHamster needs a time out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that undoing without comments is reserved for vandalism only as well. I do however, try to avoid blocking people for attacking me, so I will ask another admin to take care of it. I think we are well beyond short blocks, for the record.--Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I was already thinking it was going to be necessary to post to the etiquette noticeboard about WebHamster's conduct at the talk page, but I see WebHamster has created this article against obvious consensus, and has contributed further insults and general incivility on this thread. There's no need to tolerate his behaviour. Final warning then a long block if he still can't stay civil? p.s. I don't want to breach WP:OUTING, but how do we know WebHamster isn't really a self-publicising WebGerbil? Fences&Windows 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an uninvolved admin: Per this comment, would an uninvolved admin please review the expired and closed RfC (Note my comment at the end relative to the housekeeping archiving of the RfC) on Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil, initiated here on April 4, 2009, and determine consensus to help simplify the ongoing discussion. Specifically, is the gerbil urban legend as attached to Gere a BLP violation? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this request here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked I have about 0 tolerance for editors that respond to criticism that way. My action is, as always, open for review. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who deleted the article and admonished for such, would you reconsider the block? Full disclosure here is that I don't adhere to NPA nor CIV blocks. That's not an excuse - but just who I act as an admin. I would cordially ask you to unlblock at consider the backlash was one that was highly charged and emotional. I do not make excuses for the behaviour, as I would as you to unblock and discuss because as I said, CIV and NPA mean naught to me, and I think that WH was just lashing out. I'd honestly like to see a block for a vio of a policy to which I adhere. Law _{type! snype?} 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual cases are generally poor times to make arguments over larger policy concerns, nevermind what common law may have taught you.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm generally not supportive of "civility" or "NPA" blocks unless there is ample evidence that the person under discussion just isn't "getting the point". In some cases though, someone seems to be getting in their spidey costume in order to flaunt the fact that they don't have to behave like they would in a face to face community. In that case I don't think we need to wait for WH to grow tired of telling all and sundry to fuck off before we step in. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Disruption takes up people's time when they could be doing something more useful - the Hamster has been stirring this pot for long enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. Yes, we know Law does not like NPA and civility blocks, which is what turned the ChildofMidnight affair such a fiasco. I do not believe that admins should get to pick and choose what rules to enforce and what to let slide though, and Webhamster was clearly in to "no personal attack" territory. Don't really buy the "blowing off steam" excuse when the source of all this was a ridiculous WP:BLP transgression of an article. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a consensus that for BLP reasons that 'this should not happen' and the response is to simply create another article to mention it on, that's reason enough for a block on preventative grounds until we can get an assurance that such behaviour will not be repeated. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the block also. Long history of incivility. The childish antics yesterday were a bit too much. Obvious this user has no interest in improving their behavior. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WebHamster will be back [201], perhaps as a different web rodent.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cameron Scott. Risqué humor has its place and WebHamster can be one of the site's more colorful individuals. Although it can be harmless to poke fun at the rich and powerful in private, doing likewise in article space is not harmless--it goes to the top of search rankings and that compels us to set boundaries. This is not prudery or The Man oppressing anybody; it's common sense (with the law casting a shadow). WebHamster rebuffed ample feedback before, during, and afterward in such a definitive way that a preventive block is necessary until he recognizes those boundaries and agrees to abide by them. Durova³²⁰ 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we all know how well my comment about Octomom worked out during my RfA :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block, obviously. We put up with this sort of disruption far too often.  Sandstein  15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block. Good block. The disruption and inappropriate behavior had gone on long enough. Cirt (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is disheartening when established contributors are not taking the time to remove the personal attack from a comment, but instead, reverting the entire comment and explicitly identifying the whole edit as vandalism (example - the first sentence should have definitely been left alone). Following this by using obvious template warnings on established contributors [202] will then, depending on the user, practically guarantee that the matter will become worse - a one sentence reminder may have made a difference. In such circumstances, the result here is hardly surprising, and resolution becomes more unlikely than it would have been. However, despite what the blocking rationale seemed to focus on, there are good grounds for a block for more broad reasons that would call on a restriction of some sort (particularly as BLP and the mainspace are involved) - it is purely in light of this that I do not object to the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If new contributors can be templated as though by some nameless faceless bureaucracy, I hardly see why 'established' editors should not be. If anything, DTTR should be DTTN. Sometimes 'established' editors need reminding that they--this includes you, me, everyone all the way to Jimbo--are fungible and replaceable. And that behaviour not tolerated in a new contributor will not--must not--be tolerated in an 'established' one. → ROUX ₪ 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention, WebHamster gave me a kiddie template on my talk page during our revert war on the Richard Gere page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Sorry, some of us don't care to pick the Polo mints out of the CowpatElen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my bad - I guess we should issue template warnings in order to make a point (despite the greater likelihood that there will be a more favourable response to other forms) right? We intervene (whether it's here, or by warning) to escalate disputes and controversy (rather than to move it towards a favourable outcome or to dissolve it), right? Evading a concern over wholesale reverting and removing others comments is totally cool, right? IAR when it's a cowpat, huh? Two thumbs up to both of you, Roux and Elen; who needs fundamentals nowadays anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the block. This sort of frivolity with BLP issues can have serious consequences, and WebHamster has been around long enough to understand why enforcement is needed. Instead of backing off and discussing it, his response was to recreate and engage in incivility, and that's why a block is needed -- because there's every likelihood of a repeat, and of further unnecessary drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Would those of you blanking his user page and sanitizing his user talk page header please stop? It looks like gloating, or caged-animal poking, and is distinctly unhelpful if there is any hope of de-escalating things. He's blocked. Leave him be for a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indef blocked [203]. Consensus does not exist to support an unblock. I added the {{blocked user}} template [204]. This was reverted by DuncanHill (talk · contribs), with edit summary: Blocked, not banned, so no need for the unseemly gloating. It should be noted that the template added was {{blocked user}} (which reads: This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.), and not {{banned user}}. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to point out the painfully obvious but anyone this cavalier with their account should be expected to sock pretty darn soon. Not to cast aspersions but forewarned is fore armed. Padillah (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)^{It's been pointed out, rightly so, that, despite appearances, this has no real evidence to support it. As such I retract and apologize, I think I have sock on the brain from some other conflict and it leaked over here. Padillah (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

For God's sake, put the fucking stick down and walk away! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need some tea or a cookie? I made one observation in a thread that was recent and you're swearing at me, WTF? Padillah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can stick your tea and cookies where the sun don't shine. Your evident enjoyment of the misfortunes of another editor disgusts me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two can both cool it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Request unblock. I very much agree with Law's position. An indefinite block for a bit of swearing is ridiculous. WH probably deserved a block for 3RR, and probably so did others, but this just looks like laziness to me. Not made any more attractive by the evident dancing on the grave that we've seen since. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those supporting the block, above, mentioned other problem issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, and I think a block was probably inevitable, but not just of this user and not an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks are really only a means to humiliate by forcing an apology, which I very much doubt will be forthcoming in this case, so it's effectively a ban. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw apologies, I'm more interested in behavior change. If that comes, it comes, if it doesn't, it doesn't. This isn't, or at least shouldn't be about civility or personal attacks, its about behavior that is clearly counterproductive. WebHamster has not shown behavior that gives anyone the impression he's recognizing any of his errors (Edit warring, misusing vandalism templates, highly questionable article writing, and generally responding to criticism with abuse), which means they are likely to be repeated. Malleus is entirely correct however, that the grave dancing that is going on is unseemly. So, if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say it.

WebHamster can request his unblock the normal way, and if he can't muster the wherewithal to convince a single administrator he needs to be unblocked, that is not a problem that can be corrected here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new user keeps blanking several sections of GSG 9 "for the good of Germany". this is their justification, and their promise that they will continue. So far I've given them two vandalism warnings and an explanation that if the government of Germany is concerned, they can take it up with officials of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that diff look like a legal threat to anyone? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; this is certainly not ANI worthy. After a final warning, take it to AIV. Tan | 39 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Snuff (always did think that was a funny name for a fairy) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a drug fairies used? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could explain a good many things. FAIRY SNUFF:UR DOIN IT RONG! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user who is being disruptive and vows to continue I think gets to skip the queue. We have evidence of disruption and the promise of more.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is also apparently interested in gay tourism in Tel Aviv and calling slaughtered Rwandans monkeys, as well as claiming to be part of the German special forces.--Tznkai (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall not an asset to the project then? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would be curious what would happen if someone asked him a question in German. I am currently not blocking the account out of a totally selfish interest in avoiding an e-mail on the policy implications of discussing the organizational make up of a German special forces unit, but I suppose I will do it later if no one else will.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so why are we sitting around humming and hawing over it? The guy is obviously here to disrupt, and has promised more...--Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted his last run (at 3:09) and gave him a fourth level warning. If he does it again, feel free to block him. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm going to be reported to the head of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to go with super clueless newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're all wimps! I'll go and block him then. (PS - Fairy snuff is an illegal underground movie involving the torture and murder of mystical woodland beings.) Manning (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really reminds me of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, know what I mean? --John (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, Pink Fairies. Great with morning coffee. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks Manning, now I'm going to have nightmares involving dusted fairies. You couldn't leave it at drug use, no you had to make it worse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You've never heard the Tom Smith song, "Smash the Frickin' Fairies!"? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user currently is the subject of yet another SPI, has 5 other confirmed socks in the last two weeks alone, has ]previously identified here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois&diff=276365206&oldid=276363474 that he is a member of the Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois (which is the article where he is causing all of the trouble), and has now advanced to personal attacks, specifically here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AR%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois&diff=316815127&oldid=316814798 against myself. Is there any way to take more action against this user than by simply blocking his socks? He's like a hydra, you cut one head off and another one pops up. He has obvious and stated COI, and his socking is making it difficult to keep any sense of civility and NPOV on the article, not to mention inflaming other users. Any admin, please...advice would be appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Info - I forgot to mention the previous ANI postings about him...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Reseau+de+resistance+du+quebecois&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+all+administrators%27+noticeboards+and+archives&fulltext=Search Frmatt (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Two - This user appears to be wikistalking me as he has made an edit on a userpage where I had posted a comment about him within minutes of the comment being posted. Please see User talk:Versageek. Frmatt (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." He give credit to user for making vandalism on the RRQ page, it is his own words, there is a serious problem with that user. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009

Since it appears that there is abuse that may be coordinated offsite involving COI-affected accounts that have no intention of following the consensus here, I have semiprotected Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. This will stop the IPs and also the brand-new registered accounts. Other admins may modify this protection as they think best. The issue has also been discussed at WP:COIN#Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Philbox, his sockpuppets and his IP addresses should be blocked for good. He clearly states here that he was instructed by the leaders of the RRQ to take care of Wikipedia, hence the COI. Vincent (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple vandals doing damage to numerous articles related to this band. I've knocked out most of the more obvious stuff and protected the main Weezer article. If there's anyone out there who actually has some knowledge related to this band, all of their articles could probably use a good once-over to insure there's not more of it hanging around. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of particular articles would be helpful. Even those of us who are indifferent to Weezer aren't fans of vandals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say The Vandals?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have real concerns about the actions of Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Over the past 12 hours this user has made 100+ edits, nearly all with no edit summary to a variety of geographic articles. I have reverted the changes to {{Infobox England region}} and all the articles which previously linked to it as they broke the template and all the articles. The nature of the changes were drastic - completely replacing the template with another unsuitable one - and were not discussed. This pattern of undiscussed changes means I think someone with more expertise than me should go look at the user's other changes to see if any intervention is needed. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The username kind of gives away that they've been here before....VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also created and edits userpage User:AS1S1SA1AA which is constantly edited by IP User:93.45.54.25 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider asking him/her about these edits? Or informing them of this thread? I see no discussion anywhere that let's them know there are concerns. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user concerned. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I'm AS1S1SA1AA (my previous account) and 93.45.ecc. That said, while it's true that I did some pretty drastic changes to a number of templates, in almost every case the new layout was an obvious improvement over the previous one (Infobox England region probably being the exception, but at a glance I didn't notice anything wrong with the nine articles where it was transcluded) so I didn't think anyone would have contested these changes. Should I be the cause of further concern, I would rather receive a message in my talk page *before* there's any need for a ANI notice. I apoligise to Bob if I caused any trouble.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she (as the IP) had said that they forgot the password to the AS1Sblahblah account, so I assume this is their new account...with a name to remind them to not lose the password. ;) As for the edits to the userpage, it looked like they were working on a template to use in mainspace articles, but didn't want to break the article. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who told the user he/she could institute {{Infobox Settlement}} as the default infobox for all political division (districts, peripheries, etc.)? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind him. He's just angry with me for trespassing into "his" WikiProject.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your failure to discuss your changes is amazing. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm answering that on your talk page.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called taking it to the article or template talk pages. Not mine. Because prior to my objection you left no comment or explanation on anyone of you template/article edits about you mass deletion and change campaign. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like the beginning of WP:BRD, being bold. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This thread was moved to Requests for page protection --Cybercobra (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done--owner wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not by the editor above, see the thread higher up about this editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at Smiley face murders and it's talkpage for possible WP:OWNership issues. Several editors have tried for months to make some sort of edit to improve the article but have been shouted down repeatedly. The most recent talkpage contributions are really glaring with potential ownership issues making statements like "you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others" while being the only contributing editor resisting a change. They have impugned living people by casting aspersions on their motivations with no proof whatsoever and no indication that the impugned were even involved with editing the article. They have refused compromise after compromise all the while suggesting we were repeating ourselves over and over again. They have tried to push back and accuse me of Ownership as well but I simply want any edit to be made that contributes to the article, I've offered compromises that didn't include the "subject of objection" only to have the argument move to suggesting that the Larry King show was not a reliable source (again, despite any actual proof of this). Could someone please provide some enforceable direction on this article, one way or the other? Thank you. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I wouldn't call the Larry King show a reliable source myself, except in a primary sense (Joe Blow appeared on the Larry King show and said "Foo" - in which case I'd want to be able to reference a transcript or video clip). Just a small point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact that is exactly the manner in which it was presented. Transcript citation and all. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I take it back. It's a perfectly reasonable source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is reasonable or not does not in itself mean that including it passes other concerns... and the ones here are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Even if you let a infotainment talk show slide and call it reliable, it in no way means that we should include anything anyone says on it if it means that the end result is giving more weight to the fringe/extreme minority view on a topic. This is an attempt to use a Wikipedia article to not just describe a theory and give the experts views on it, but to go through and dig up every minor person who supported it in an attempt to fill the article with these individuals and slant readers' perceptions. Whether the editors in question know they are doing that or are just to stubborn to realize it is another question, but some of the comments on the talk page show that editors want to ignore WP:NPOV entirely. They argue that, hey, if Gallileo was right even though the people at the time didn't think so (a bad argument to start with), we should therefore go ahead and present the minority side as a major side just in case they were right. On top of that, this particular article has been hit by people promoting their own personal websites witht heir own fringe theories and have used sockpuppets. It's a hot bed a raving woowoo lunacy, which is why following NPOV to the letter is so important. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr....it's a fringe theory, and the article is about the fringe theory. The article needs to explain the fringe theory, even if it also states that the regular policedudes all think its a crap theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the problem editor here appears to be DreamGuy. Seeing as he's there on the talk page lecturing BWilkins on his failure to understand policy (which must be a bit like lecturing the Pope on the workings of the Holy See), I'm not sure this requires action by the admins. If the rest of you have agreed, make the changes. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree. (This comment posted by Elen about an hour ago Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud... No, to clarify, a number of of editors have agreed that the changes cannot be made because they violate our rules on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. But the people who want to push the POV simply ignore those editors and just start up new sections on the talk page pretending that earlier discussions never happened and then, when I am the only person who bothers to respond (the others thinking it shouldn't be necessary to repeat themselves), these guys try to act as if it's only a single editor opposing the idea. That's so misleading as to almost have to be intentionally deceptive, and you seem to have fallen for it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is that he has made it abundantly clear that any change he does not agree with will be reverted as violating WP:UNDUE. We have made the change... we have made the compromise change... He reverts them no questions asked. We have posted possible changes on the talkpage and had no input from him for a day, then we put the change in the article and he reverts it within hours. I suppose the three of us could gang up on him and get him blocked for 3RR but that's not nice, so I brought it here. Padillah (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, you have made it clear that you are going to ignore all the editors who disagree with you and very deceptively pretend it's only one person. All this despite there having been a number of editors who disagreed with you and have explained why Wikipedia's policies don't support what you insist has to be done. You have never tried for any compromise other than saying you are compromise and suggesting as a compromise the very thing you wanted to do from the beginning. Frankly, your actions here suggest that you are intentionally trying to mislead admins about what's been going on in order to try to get one to take action against me based upon your false claims. This kind of behavior is an extremely disruptive attempt to game the system, and it seems to me it should be a blockable offense if you are caught doing it again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, you are making clear that you are going to ignore the majority of editors that don't agree with you. Why do you get to ignore me, AngryApathy, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins but insist I'm being unreasonable when I disagree with you, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus? You disagreeing with 5 people is more stable than my disagreeing with 4? Why? As for misleading anyone I'm not the one that pointed anyone out. I mentioned the page and suggested that someone was displaying ownership problems. Somehow they thought of you all by themselves. I have led no one so by extension have misled no one. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem here is that certain editors have learned that when they have a POV they want advanced but can't get consensus to support them that they can just run off to ANI and present an extremely misleading summary of events to try to deceive people and then a handful of people chime in based solely upon this misleading information.

I should also note that the editor in question never notified me of this ANI thread and posted it here under a nondescriptive section title and so was able to come here and give his extremely misleading claims unopposed until someone else alerted me to it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only POV that the article needs to better represent the theory or simply be deleted as too fringe. Just because two cops have a theory doesn't mean we need a WP article about it. Notability aside, mentioning it at all is UNDUE weight if there are only two adherents. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, am I singling you out specifically or am I being nondescriptive? I can't do both. You say I'm posting here singling you out but then claim I am being sneaky and nondescriptive. Could it be that I am being non-descriptive in an effort not to single you out? Besides, not only did I post a notice to this on the talkpage so did BasketofPuppies so there was notification. What claims have I made? You insist I have made misleading claims, what are they specifically? What did I claim and how is it misleading? Padillah (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are serious ownership issues in the article. DreamGuy has excluded sources, such as an Associate Professor in a relevant field, presented on CNN, as "undue weight" in supporting a kooky fringe theory. In any other article, that would have been accepted as a reliable source. An article about a fringe theory should not exclude all otherwise-reliable sources which support the theory. Edison (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something in particular that an RFC (subject or user) or any of the other dispute resolutions methods won't be effective for? As of right now, I see people wanting admins to come in and hash out a content dispute here, which isn't going to happen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. I tried very hard to make sure the phrasing above was regarding the OWNership issues one editor has taken with the article and not make this about a cry for help "overpowering" some viewpoint. I never meant to have anyone come and help or weigh in on the content of the article. I was trying to bring what I perceived to be ownership problems with a specific editor to the attention of an admin. I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

58.174.227.190 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing, including personal insults to article subjects and Wikipedians. An edit that got my particular attention was this, suggesting a business be fire bombed. While I think it likely that this is just some bozo who thinks they're being funny, as it might be read as an insightment to violence I gave them a significantly longer 2nd block than I would have otherwise. Infrogmation (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. When the vandalism is so persistent, shorter blocks just mean more work for admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user was not warned sufficiently please review your decision --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruption. The IP received a level 4 warning before the block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and if you look at User_talk:58.174.227.190, you'll see a string of earlier warnings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The ip should have received 4 warnings before being blocked (That's why they have a 4 level system) The IP's last edit was at 10:43 29 September 2009 while he was given a level 4 at 11:34, 29 September 2009 ,The IP was subsquently blocked while the user was offline --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, admins are free to use their judgement and block if they feel necessary as they have the trust of the community. No editor is guaranteed 4 warnings before a block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To shivlingam - it is very odd for someone so newly registered to find their way to ANI and start quoting policy shortcomings to admins. Is this perhaps an alternate account for you? The last time I saw this kind of behavior was User:PinkgirlXX (where XX was a variety of numbers). Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Shivlingam (talk · contribs) for all of the disruptive editing over the past few days, and made it indef for the obvious socking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. All users have the prerogative to skip warning levels depending on the severity and repetitiveness of the vandalism. Well, it's not like the now-indefinitely-blocked user would have listened anyways. MuZemike 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a Checkuser has any free time here, it would be great to see who is behind this disguise. MuZemike 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Shivlingam (talk · contribs) = Notedgrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And interestingly enough, MuZemike... [205] :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification: Muzemike is not socking. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notedgrant? Fascinating. → ROUX ₪ 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Speedied by KillerChihuahua ^Khukri 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied Josh_lumb as an article about a non-notable person, then changed it to vandalism, seeing as it it included the regular vandal repertoire. Now the creator is contesting the speedy, claiming that the subject donated a kidney and saved their life. This is inconsistent with the original version of the article, and violates WP:COI anyway. Can someone who has time take care of this? A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't make the individual any more WP:Notable, unless it made the front page somewhere --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd combination of memorial and vandalism. Probably a kid thinking he's funny, but maybe not. Drop a message on his talk page and figure out which is which, then the page can be deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidneys (or rather, selling them off to pay the mortgage) are all over the UK news today. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.144.255.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has been warned several times for BLP violations in the article, and the talk page of Roman Polanski, the IP edit warred multiple times [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211], adding material against consensus. This disruption resulted in the semi-protection of the article. Now, the IP continues POV-pushing and keeps inserting BLP violations (accusations of pedophilia and possession of child pornography without reliable sources to back them up) on the talk page. The IP should be blocked to stop this disruption. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did add "Is currently a fugitive" to the Polanski article. Do I need to produce a ref for that here? I also changed "plead guilty" to "convicted" and changed the capital S in sex to lower case. All of those edits linked above were mine. If that "disruption" caused Cenarium to lock the article - perhaps this discussion should widen a bit.99.144.255.247 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources for everything you add to an article, particularly if the information is contentious, and the article is about a living person. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing contentious about noting that Roman Polanski is "currently a fugitive", indeed it is directly related to his world famous "conviction". Is there also doubt about spelling sex with a lower-case? Honestly, I do not get your point. Do you wish to presently see a ref supporting those facts you indicate are somehow "contentious"? Do you seriously not think those editions are/were supported yesterday when they were entered?99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you think that "fugitive" is absolutely the correct word to put into the article, you should have no trouble finding a source to back it up (if it's accurate, there is bound to be a newspaper article or something which you can use as a reference). I look forward to seeing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[212] --Smashville^talk 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]