Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Edit warring, if anyone cares

Hi. It's been brought to my attention that User:Badagnani and User:GraYoshi2x are reverting each other on multiple articles and leaving (and reverting) unpleasant messages on talk pages. User:Ronz can tell you more. I've dealt with Badagnani in the past, and I'd recommend blocking him; he's intractable and doesn't care about consensus. I don't know much about the other guy.

I'm posting here because I won't get involved. Badagnani wouldn't listen to anything I say anyway. I tried to help him once, and he rudely threw it back in my face, so... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:GraYoshi2x has subjected me to the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my time at WP, over the past 4 or so weeks following me to nearly every article I have edited, on all subjects, always to revert or remove my contributions. The discussion page postings and edit summaries were similarly over-the-top--the most threatening I have ever encountered. As WP:STALK is against WP policy, I had asked an admin (in fact, the admin just above) to please ask that the WP:STALK editor please stop doing this, and he informed me that he would not, and that in fact he does not take either WP policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his admin duties. If no admin will ask that WP:STALK be stopped, our fundamentally positive, collaborative, and collegial project can easily be undermined in a manner very damaging to the above ideals. The admin just above did state, twice, privately to other editors, that he hoped I would eventually be blocked, and it seems that the above comment is an effort to get that to happen. As one of the most sincere and productive contributors here--one who loves and cares about this project and its collaborative ethos--the above request that I no longer be permitted to contribute here comes as a huge blow. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani for details on many, similar situations.

I'm not sure what else to add. The edit-warring over Rice noodles vs List of rice noodles should stop given that lack of dispute resolution attempts on the matter. The issue over Wiktionary linking should be discussed and resolved before trying to apply it to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yer shittin' us. They're edit warring over rice noodles? HalfShadow 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Badagnani and GraYoshi2x: please stop edit warring. Badagnani, you've started 1288 articles. Please do something constructive. You may get blocked if you continue edit warring. I won't be happy to see a productive editor like you getting blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the above; this is not primarily about any particular article per se; it is about an editor who has elected to follow me to nearly every page I have edited, on whatever subject, always in an effort to undo or blank my contributions--the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my tenure at WP. I don't know why this is and have asked an admin to please ask that this stop (in fact, the very admin who initiated this discussion, and who earlier commented to three other editors that he had hoped I would be eventually removed from Wikipedia), but nothing has been done. WP:STALK is a policy, not a guideline, and am I to infer that the above admin also chooses not to uphold this policy? Further, I do not understand why I was specifically addressed in the above comment, while the WP:STALK editor actively removing content again and again on any and every page I edit was not? Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex issue. I've not been involved with this issue. So, admins who are familiar with this issue should resolve this issue. My advice for both parties: don't edit war, please solve the issue by taking with each other. And please keep your head cool. AdjustShift (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an admin who has been involved with one of these editors, I'm way too burned from my interactions with Badagnani to be any use resolving the issue. That's why I posted here. I don't know if anyone else is really waiting in the wings... What do you do with an editor who insists that he's entitled to never an edits reverted without his prior consent, and that anyone who finds his behavior at all problematic is a bullying stalker, who's forbidden on his talk page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to repeatedly talk with Badagnani and try to engage in some peaceful discussion; however, he simply removes my comments from his talk page and threatens me to "not post here again", and sometimes even attacks me. Although I do realize that I got myself into an edit war and I apologize for any trouble that it may have caused. Perhaps my frustration got the better of me. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; the discussion page postings from User:GraYoshi2x, from the very first I received, have been the most extreme, threatening, and aggressive postings I have ever received from any editor, ever, during my four years contributing at WP. Examples include [1] and [2] This was followed by a straight month (nearly 30 straight days) of any and every article I edited, on any subject, of the above editor choosing to follow me as per WP:STALK (which is against WP policy), always in an effort to undo or remove content I contributed. This creates difficulty in discussing in a thoughtful and collegial manner, when it was thoughtful, collegial, and considered discussion I requested from the outset, and all along. Badagnani (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first example was a bit rude and I did apologize for that. However, I made a valid point on the second as you chose not to cooperate with me; in the end I decided to assume a bit more good faith and never reported you at all. Also please stop with the stalking accusations. It isn't really helping this incident in any way, and it's clear that I'm trying to fix up the articles and not purposely disrupt it (which you did do to me several times). GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see what I mean? Intractable. I thought I posted the most extreme, threatening and aggressive postings he'd ever received, when I was trying (thanklessly) to help him. I kinda feel bad being upstaged. This guy likes superlative adjectives way too much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it for myself. Badagnani is edit-warring over the formatting of my comments: [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani's block log. Representative interactions. Badagnani's RfC. I have no idea whether GraYoshi2x is "stalking" Badagnani. I do know that anyone who insists as Badagnani does on escalating and personalizing every editing dispute, no matter how minor, will inevitably leave a trail of frustrated editors. I see that Badagnani is on best noticeboard behavior: all he ever wanted was civil, collaborative editing and discussion. But that doesn't jibe with his record. I mean, this is someone who's exhausted the patience of GTBacchus, which may be a first. This is someone who has never seen an issue too minor to edit-war over. GraYoshi2x should disengage and leave Badagnani alone. Badagnani should stop being a chronic headache for everyone who crosses his path on Wikipedia. Sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring?

• Comment: I do agree that Badagnani seems to be being stalked by a few users from WP:EL who leave pointers to the RfC everywhere, and who prefer to revert his edits - rather than offer advice and assistance and encouragement. I agree that Badagnani's style of replying to talkpage threads is not the usual anglo-western one. I would guess that perhaps he is a foreign (possibly Hungarian) and/or older individual, who is simply perplexed by the youngsters involved above who are badgering him and mocking/dissecting his language. If that were the case with me, I might use "superlative adjectives way too much" too. He needs a mentor, not a block. (If I had time I would volunteer). Some of the people badgering him could really use civility and friendliness lessons. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentoring an editor with long-term problems is a major commitment of time and effort, and results have been extremely disappointing in the long run. You're volunteering someone else to take on this thankless role. Let's assume we all value our time as highly as you do, and don't wish to spend it mentoring Badagnani. How do you propose we proceed? You also suggest that Badagnani's difficulties are reactive and caused by "youngsters" badgering him. I don't see that; it seems that he's quite often the aggressor, or at least an aggressor, in many of the disputes in which he's involved. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (after ec w/ MastCell) Quiddity, thanks for this. I like the angle you're taking here. Anyone attempting this might want to learn from my errors. I tried to mentor Badagnani, and it failed rather spectacularly. I tried to convince him to let me edit with him, and by working through content disputes, get to the bottom of the troublesome behavior. He basically shouted at me how to do my job. There was nothing acceptable to him short of having his "assailants" punished and his edits protected, and the fact that I wouldn't jump at his command meant I didn't care about our policies.

    I accept that I must have bungled our interaction from the start, but he really is among the most combative and difficult editors I've ever worked with here, and I tend to work with combative and difficult editors. If anyone can get through to this editor, I'll be delighted, and I'll study how they did it, but... I couldn't get past the refusal to allow any contribution of his to be changed without his prior approval. We can't work like that here. What are we supposed to do, change everything because he's coming from a different cultural perspective?

    My very first direct interaction with Badagnani preceded all of this by a month or so, and related to cultural differences. He was edit warring at Dog meat, over a probable copyvio YouTube link. He was attacking other editors as biased "Korean nationalists". Here:

    • [5] I leave what I think is a reasonably worded message, including an offer to help work out the policy question, and giving a somewhat stern warning that we don't talk about each others' ethnicities.
    • [6] He replies by thanking me for the message, telling me I'm simply wrong to question the permissibility of a YouTube link that's a pretty clear copyvio, and reaffirming that we need to stop the "Korean nationalists".
    • [7] I reply more sternly that, no, we really don't talk about people this way, and doing so will earn a block.
    • [8] He removes my post as "highly threatening", and asks me in the edit summary if I'm new, don't I know that we make racist generalizations all the time?
    • [9] I tell him I'm not new; I've been an admin for three years, and personal attacks are not on.

    Then he gets really quiet, and that's the end of the interaction. In what culture is that cool? Never mind that; what could I have done better? Do I tolerate racism, edit warring and disregard for copyright, because he might be old and Hungarian? How do you mentor this guy? It's very easy for you to say that "someone should" do it, that you would "if you had time". Anyone willing and able to take this guy on as a project, you have my highest esteem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - GTB, reading over this mess, I commend you for the patience that you've had interacting with this user. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Badagnani needs to learn when to stop replying to certain talkpage threads, and to just edit articles, and he needs to reread a few core guidelines and use less adjectives (less emotional language) and to write politically-correctly when in public. But when he's being pursued by nigh relentless and adversarial editors, it's hard to step in and give advice without seeming similarly dictatorial. I haven't formally mentored anyone before, and wouldn't claim to be a good mediator - I wouldn't know where to begin. In the end it's a partly just difference of wikiphilosophy, with a few problematic habits thrown in. It's a dispute between 4 or 5 immediatists who know how to wikilawyer, and a lone (I'd say curmudgeonly (some of my best friends in RL are curmudgeons)) eventualist. Eventualism got Wikipedia to where it is today, so I'm inclined to try to assist him, and at least attempt to see things from (what I imagine is) his point of view. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that your suggestion is that some unidentified person, with inexhaustible patience and cultural sensitivity, should help this guy out. In my experience, these editors who are "relentless and adversarial" are people I've found to be at least somewhat receptive to communication. Badagnani is by far the most unapproachable person involved.

Unless you can say where this amazing mentor is going to come from, I don't see that you're suggesting anything practical. Do you expect someone to punish those who have been, in good faith, cleaning up after Badagnani, when he inserts sources that are obviously spammy, if not downright illegal? Or do you expect someone to come in with such clear vision that they see him as innocent, and his tormentors as guilty, and are able to defend this view? Where is this mediator, and why is it only clear to two or three people that Badagnani is the victim? How could I, for example, have given him more of a chance?

Speaking as someone who regularly puts his money where his mouth is, I'm extremely unimpressed with your suggestions. Back it up, or... why should we listen? What of value are you contributing? I don't mean to sound insulting, but... what are you realistically suggesting?

If you're his friend, convince him to change his style. Otherwise, I don't believe that this hero who will do so really exists. Nobody is as lost as he who will not accept directions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Quiddity... how can you call someone an eventualist when they officiously insist that their edits must be left in the article as a precondition to even discussing them? Do you know what "eventualism" is? What's "eventualist" about insisting that a copyvio link stay in an article now, for fear that our readers might not know today how barbaric the Koreans are, for example? Who are you even talking about? Badagnani is the opposite of an eventualist if I've ever seen one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm possibly being a devil's advocate for the wrong horse. I've glanced through a few of the disputes and archives and the RfC and he has made some definite blunders. I wouldnt want to defend his actions one by one. You, GTBacchus, definitely made a good attempt to mentor/guide him, and I'm sorry it didn't work.

I'm not his friend, and he might be irredeemable. I'm just tired of seeing small handfuls of people bring massive amounts of coordinated grief onto a variety of editors (usually academics or foreigners) who don't know how to handle their immediatist attitudes, or their stubborn bad faith regarding almost any external links. I've seen links to university archives removed, just because "the wrong person" added them!

Regarding Eventualism: "In stark contrast to an exclusionist, an eventualist has no objection to large chunks of unwikified text and trusts that, eventually, someone will fix this, where an immediatist or exclusionist would be concerned that they will reduce the perceived professionalism of Wikipedia." -- Quiddity (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the only two situations I've been following closely are at the following threads, where Badagnani seems to be acting completely appropriately, but the other editors are making things painfully difficult for myself and the two admins trying to slowly rescue the lists: List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (and its associated: talk, AFD, RS/N) and List of liqueurs (talk, WT:RS, RS/N). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of liqueurs? Really? This discussion is from over almost a year ago and demonstrates the exact same inability to work with others that is documented in Badagnani's RfC/U. He continues the same exact behavior once again in List of liqueurs when I confront him for the very same problems identified in the Redlinks discussion. He continues the same exact behavior in List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. This is not "acting completely appropriately." This is tendentious editing with disregard for most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) June 2008 is not "over a year ago". 10 months admittedly, but exaggerating doesn't help. 2) You and GraYoshi2x erase all links and demand someone else check them for you, whereas we request that you collaborate on checking and verifying links. I think he has been quite polite given your dictatorial/angry-cop attitude. Each time he requests that you collaborate, you ignore him or point out the RfC: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. But again, I'm only familiar with these 2 situations. I'll try to look through some other page histories when I have time tonight. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ronz, the note at my talkpage is much appreciated. I have replied at length there, with some thoughts that are relevant to this whole thread (hence a pointer from here). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-- Outdenting) Ok, Quiddity, here's the most generous reading I think I can give you. (What I'm about to say is not necessarily what I believe.)

Badagnani is an eventualist, with cultural differences and a generation gap working against him; fine. He has been unfairly harangued, harassed, stalked and mocked, by a group of bad-faith editors who won't let him be; fine. He's become so frustrated with this campaign of torment that he's closed off to trusting or accepting help from anyone else around here; clearly. So.... what do we do? We need a practical solution that we can actually implement.

One option is to tell Badagnani that he's right, warn and block his opponents, and give him a barnstar and a cookie. Another option is to put Badagnani on some kind of behavior parole, get Clark Kent or Job or someone to mentor him (if he'll accept it), and then block him if he can't respect our community norms.

The problem with the first option is that I don't think it can last. If we bump off Ronz, and Caspianblue, and Wikidemon (and who else?), unless we can also effect a profound change in the way Badagnani interacts, then more Wikipedians will just fill the shoes of these unreasonable tormentors. We could go 12 rounds like this, and eventually, we might realize that if 40 people are unreasonable and 1 person is reasonable... then it's actually the other way around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget harried! There's a lot of hyperbole there, which I'm happy to read between the lines of, and mostly agree with. If Badagnani has stopped adding things like flickr as sources, then it's mostly a personality conflict, and we cannot change people' character, but we should be making more of an effort to be adaptive and diplomatic and patient with foreigners and academics and oldsters. He's started ~1300 articles in the 4 years he's been editing, and from random clicking through the list on his userpage, most of them are damned good stubs, or better.

More later, offline commitments call... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I agree that we should be more diplomatic and patient when dealing with foreigners and academics and oldsters. In this particular case, I don't know what that would look like. Maybe it's just a matter of stopping the... "harriers"? While we have clear documentation of Badagnani's problematic behavior, I haven't seen nearly as much about these "ruffians," "rakes," and/or "rude-boys".

I have advised Ronz, since before this current round of business began, that his leaving warnings on Badagnani's talk page is foolhardy. He disagrees. He says (ignoring a fairly stong consensus) that DTTR is wrong, and that we should deal with problem behavior consistently and officially, by using warnings to document problems. He's wrong about this, and his warnings do lead directly and predictably to escalation, and help undermine attempts at dispute resolution. He should stop templating the regulars, unless his goal is to create unnecessary heat; problems document themselves, without warnings that tend to aggravate things.

That's the worst I've seen though, which isn't much compared with the worst I've seen from Mr. B. I have previously asked another editor who defended Badagnani to post positive comments at the RfC, but he has so far declined to do so. If those who support Badagnani really want to help, the best thing you can do is to document situations where non-spammy, not-illegal contributions of Badagnani's are being lost through the actions of others. This would be good for the community to see. Show us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of examples from the last few days: [16] (gratuitous rudeness), [17] (the superscript photo-links are bad, but the wiktionary links are useful), and the senseless antagonism over an embedded-list of mostly blue links at Rice noodles.

Badagnani has some occasionally odd sourcing habits (although a few of these get into the gray area of "whether an imperfect source is better than no source, or not"), and he seems to like adding hidden comments for future reference (which irk some people but are mostly harmless). He strongly reminds me of a few of our older, prolific editors (eg fabartus), who are offended by the people who "make a waste of their time spent editing" by simply deleting or reverting edits.

I'd have to dig back months to find a time before he was being harassed. He certainly is vilified though, eh! Most of the disputes I've run across so far have been fairly normal Wikipedia activity, eg. the page history of Gurney Norman - each participant has a point of view on what should be included and how, and eventually they work out a compromise.

He might be doing far worse things that I haven't seen yet. What is the worst he has been doing, aside from inarticulately pointing out that someone might have a patriotic-bias in regards to dog meat? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's ignoring copyright law, in that particular case. The suggestion that a necessity for permission might outweigh the need to have the link in the article was, I think, quite reasonably presented. He rejected it out of hand, and refused to consider that he might be wrong. He ridiculed the idea that we should care about copyright, and emphasized the absolute necessity of using that particular link, citing our responsibility to our readers to provide the best information, regardless of legality. That's worse than inarticulateness. It's not an "odd sourcing habit"; it's a crime.

That's also the general pattern: there's an utter refusal to acknowledge that there might possibly be a reading of policy other than his. I tried to ask him in so many ways, "how can we tell whether X or Y is more important?," and he utterly refused to engage in any discussion, other than to tell me that I'm mistaken, and then to personally attack me for failing to block the other guys. That's worse than inarticulateness.

If you can show me a situation where Badagnani has accepted any kind of criticism as anything other than a personal attack, I'll give you $10. Where do you draw the line between "cantankerous" and "intractable"? Refusing to accept than one can possibly be wrong is worse than "inarticulateness". In a collaborative environment, it's utterly unacceptable. Do you disagree? How do we work with this?

Oh, another thing. If you're willing to write in his defense here, why aren't you willing to go to his RfC and leave a positive comment? You're not the only person who supports him here and there, by complaining that others should somehow improve, but that you're "too busy". Each of these people has failed to support him there. Why? It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would probably mean a lot to him. Maybe those things would look less like witch-hunts if people would go ahead and bring some positivity to the table. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was advocating linking to a korean television news clip [18], that an anon had uploaded to youtube. He seemed to be claiming that no other available source provided the insight of that clip(?). I don't think he said it specifically, but I believe he was thinking that such use constitutes "fair use" (an intrinsically subjective set of criteria, that I think this instance is neither close nor far from passing). I searched a few archives for this yesterday, and saw that there is generally a lack of consensus, though some people advocate more self-protective paranoia than others (or are more opposed to external links, or more opposed to skirting potential legal boundaries): Wikipedia_talk:External_links/YouTube and Wikipedia_talk:External_links/YouTube_2. However, I don't think that could be characterized as advocating a "crime" at all (which is a fairly heavy accusation). The clip is not particularly useful (imho) because it is not in English, but pictures do speak a thousand internationally-understood words...

As for whether or not he accepts criticism, I haven't met many people here who were particularly good at giving constructive criticism - lot's of people who think they are, and the majority of people in the world think they are good drivers... I don't claim to be good at either one of those.

I will ask him if he can find any instances. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it at least ought to be possible to have the conversation about whether the link is appropriate. Badagnani's position is that it is obviously so, and that any objection to that is obviously based on a mistaken reading. If we can't even have a conversation about it, how can we collaborate? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The accusation that I am a criminal is outrageous and I ask that it be withdrawn immediately. Such an accusation of one of our project's most productive and sincere editors is simply not something befitting the status of administrator, as our administrators must adhere to a higher standard than that (as well as uphold our policies, which the above admin has stated that he categorically will not do). The use of File:Brain freeze-01.jpg is not illegal, and, as I mentioned at the discussion page of Ice-cream headache, I have been in correspondence with the photographer, who had no problem with its use as an illustration of an ice-cream headache at the Ice-cream headache article. Badagnani (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the item at issue, see my reply above. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Badagnani, I don't think you commit any crime intentionally. I think you fail to appreciate that other editors' legal concerns are legitimate. I think that adding that link is illegal, because of copyright, and I think that you, acting in 100% complete good faith, fail to appreciate that. I did not call you a criminal, and I never will call you that. You are not defined by one good-faith but misguided action. You are a human being, not a criminal. There is a very big difference between "that action was a crime" and "you are a criminal". If you don't understand that difference, I can explain it in more detail.

  I certainly never claimed that the "brain-freeze" picture was illegal - I haven't mentioned it at all. There's the YouTube video clip for which we do not have permission, and you refused to acknowledge that other editors' good-faith concerns about the legality of that clip were even worth discussing.

  As for the claim that I've stated categorically that I will not uphold our policies, that is simply not true. I have offered Badagnani so many times to let me uphold our policies in the manner that I am comfortable doing, and he turns that into a complete falsehood that I refuse to uphold policies. I simply won't do it the counter-productive, escalatory, unencyclopedic way he wants me to do it. He wanted me to play cop, rudely demanded that I play cop, and he refuses to understand that admins are not cops. He refuses to consider that I might possibly have a different approach.

  I continue to offer to uphold our policies in the only way I know how, and Badagnani continues to throw this offer back in my face, bundled with a falsehood about my refusal to act. With everyone here as my witness, I will help you, Badagnani, if you let me do it my way.

  You are not a criminal in my mind — hear that, carefully... "You are not a criminal, Badagnani". Get it? I have never called you that; you mistakenly advocated something that has a very good chance of being illegal. I have never said I wished for you to be blocked (you've falsely accused me of that repeatedly - probably a misunderstanding), and I have never refused to uphold our policies. I just won't do it the wrong way that you want me to. If you want me to help you, don't tell me how to do my job. What's so complicated about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here is the "not true" comment in which the above editor states, very clearly, that he does not take either policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his duties. Why would one state something so clearly, then later say he did not? Badagnani (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow. :) Yeah, I said to Viriditas that I don't read policies. The edit summary said, "if you have to read it, you've already missed the point." I mean that. If you go to the page Wikipedia:Civility to decide whether or not you're being civil, then you've already missed the point, which is to actually respect each other. The point is not to follow some rule in every detail, but to recognizing other humans as being worthy of our respect.

    I expressed this idea to Viriditas in a way that I took to be humorous, and which I believe he also understood in that way. My intention was certainly not to give the impression that I disregard our policies. My intention to was say that I regard them very seriously, and in terms of the "spirit of the law", not the "letter of the law".

    That my lighthearted remark was mistaken for disdain for our policies surprises me — I didn't anticipate that. I should learn from this not to assume that every reader here will understand and appreciate my sense of humor, especially in contexts that concern them personally.

    Badagnani, I assure you that I hold Wikipedia policy in the highest regard, and that my comment to Viriditas was a statement against Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and not against the project's fundamental values. I was giving him a good-natured ribbing over approaching me with policy links, rather than with straighter talk about the situation. I apologize for the misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Actually, the failure to even spend a single word asking that the editors engaging in WP:STALK cease such activity, which has been going on for nearly 40 days now without stop (over 50 instances this very day), does illustrate the lack of adherence or even reading of our own very important policies, of which WP:STALK is one. (The actual quote is very clear: "I don't read guidelines...Policies are doubly avoided.") It is crucially important that our admins uphold such policies in order to preserve our founders' ethos, and collaborative, positive spirit. In 40 days there has been not one word or action taken by the above admin in this regard, which does not speak well for the current curating of our project, which I care for and about deeply. Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I have defended you repeatedly, and asked other editors to stop leaving warnings on your talk page, for example. Once, I repeatedly reverted another editor who was leaving aggressive messages on your talk page. I'm sorry you never noticed this. Even today, I have been commenting that the editors with whom you have conflict are contributing to the problem, and not behaving in an appropriate, de-escalatory manner. I'm sorry you haven't noticed any of this.

  As for enforcing WP:STALK, my offer remains open, despite your insults, to help you deal with this behavior. I simply refuse to do it in a way other than the only way I am capable of. I am not a policeman. I only have one kind of help to offer. Take it, or get help from someone better - there must be many!

  I have asked you repeatedly, and I ask you again: If my help to you is so unsatisfactory, then why can you not get one of the THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED OTHER ADMINS to help you? Why do you complain about me, rather than finding someone more reasonable? If I'm so terrible, they must be easy to find, right? Why not get help from them? Are you going to continue to attack me for being more solicitous and willing to help you than any other admin on the project? Do you think that I don't have feelings? You keep hurting them. Stop, please!!! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Badagnani, according to your definition of WP:STALK, today, you're the one who WP:STALK GraYoshi2x (talk · contribs) over multiple Chinese food articles ; Buddha jumps over the wall, Buddha's delight, Cha tang, Suanmeitang, and Baiye. Given the accessible information on his talk page, GraYoshi2x is a native speaker of Chinese and has been working on Chinese/Asian cuisine article. Moreover the articles are not created by you nor edited by you for recent months and you have a long history of inserting false Chinese characters to articles. You have a serious issue with WP:OWN (how could cuisine articles be all yours? In the same sense, you also WP:Hound me two days ago to an article that I created regardless of my previous saying that do no not follow my edit. You've also wikihounded me for more than one year including articles beyond your intersts, but you never admit your wrongdoings. You don't care about the project, but about only your ego.--Caspian blue 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is unhelpful Caspian. We are trying to de-escalate, not to escalate. Do you understand the difference? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  GTBacchus, I appreciate your patience, but unfortunately I'm no saint able to feel okay with his contradictory behaviors and absurd victim card. Didn't you suggest to block him because of his endless edit warring and blatant disregard to consensus?--Caspian blue 03:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not if we can find a solution that doesn't involve blocking him, no, I don't. If he can agree to work with others, respectfully... that's the ideal solution. The extent to which you're trying to help us get there is appreciated. If he has to be blocked, that's a loss for everyone. The goal is that we work together, not that we identify and remove "bad guys".

  I suggest that we block him if nothing better than that can be brought about, but I wouldn't keep contributing to this conversation if I didn't think something better were possible. I envision a Wikipedia where we get better and better at this, and learn how to accept contributions from a greater variety of people. This situation is an opportunity to learn, and it's worth as much as we let it be.

  Yes, I'm frightfully idealistic. I'm a teacher; I'd better be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, you have to carry the burden of "mentoring him" as long as he gets it. His edits need to get "attention" for obvious reasons given so far. He does not realize that he is so lucky. --Caspian blue 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you're certainly in a position to help... :) I don't know if Badagnani wants to have anything to do with me. If not, and if no one else is willing to take his case in a more substantial way than by lamenting that "someone" should help him, then I reckon he'll be gone before long. (Badagnani, "reckon" means "predict" in this context. It does not mean "hope" I do not hope for you to be blocked.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I must say, having observed only a fraction of Badagnani's edits, that the behaviour of GraYoshi2x and Ronz is extremely provocative. The article List of gamelan ensembles in the United States was a haven of quiet and cooperative editing for 3 years until 24 Feb 2009 when Ronz followed Badagnani (a long-time contributor) to it; since then Ronz, aided and abetted by GraYoshi2x, has turned the list into a battleground, imposing an extreme version of WP:Lists under which very few lists would survive. The collateral damage from this unseemly squabble is considerable and my own view is that GraYoshi2x and Ronz should agree to stop following Badagnani around (and vice versa, of course). Occuli (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

• "one of our project's most productive and sincere editors"... nice. Having seen this guy in action personally, I'd recommend a block; I agree with GTB et al. Verbal chat 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how to tactfully say it, but I, and most people I know, regard a statement with greater and greater suspicion the more times it's repeated. Tell me once, and I'll believe you; tell me one hundred times, and I wonder what you're trying to hide from me. This is a lesson I learned over three continents and a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I agree it's not science, but I believe it. I know I'm not the only person who thinks this way, either.

  I will continue to assume good faith, because if I'm going to stop I might as well jump off a bridge, but I will probably be much more irritable, dealing with an editor who continually advertises how great he is in his own estimation. I don't think I'm alone in this regard. Someone should write a wiki-essay about it...

  This is of course purely an aesthetic consideration, and anyone not finding value in this way of thinking, please do ignore us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with GTB and Verbal. As soon as reading the ANI, I was very surprised to know that GTBacchus who had volunteered to mentor Badagnani, proposes to block him alone. Indeed, Badagnani has exhausted not only GTBacchus, but also many editors who have to deal with his disruptive editing (you name it) and attitude in Asian history and cuisine articles. The guy seems to consider Wikipedia "a place to satisfy his endless curiosity over esoteric subjects." He has made good contributions, but much of them have to be cleaned up. (I've done so for many occasions) However his stubborn resistance against removing his original research/synthesis/unreliable sources like commercial spams, blogs, promotional sources, flickr or YouTube links, is hard to work with him as opposed to his self-claim. If anyone cleans such uncyclopedic materials, then s/he has to bear accusations like "highly disruptive and damaging blanking of important information and note. That is harmful to our encyclopedia". He has requested to block AfDs nominators for the same reason. He, extreme inclusionist, never regards "consensus" and "reliable sources". Mentorship is already failed, and RFC/U on him is failing because he never responds to the raised concerns. I wonder who could guide him. --Caspian blue 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I sincerely don't think there's the slightest hope that Badagnani will ever be willing and able to reasonably discuss and reconcile a conflict. I had my own run-in with Badagnani at Talk:Musette last fall in which he behaved EXACTLY the same way as in the discussion at Talk:List of liqueurs and, apparently, in many other instances. Now he's behaving just as unreasonably in regard to Spare ribs; check out the recent edit history, where he repeatedly undoes three edits because one of them removed a paragraph (he says on the Talk page that the other two are fine) and demands that an explanation be provided for removing information--even though a perfectly clear explanation has been offered, and repeated, and utterly ignored. This is not the behavior of anyone who just needs to learn how to cooperate with other editors; it's the behavior of someone who has no interest in ever cooperating, despite the dozens of warnings that he should do so. He should either be blocked long-term or someone should be tasked to follow all his edits, to step in and make a ruling whenever he enters a disagreement. If he's going to forever escape any real retribution because he's contributed so much otherwise to the wiki, please give him some official label so the rest of us will know he can do whatever he wants in perpetuity, regardless of policy, courtesy or consensus, and won't bother trying to reason with him. Propaniac (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Badagnani is a complete time sink. Why waste more time? David D. (Talk) 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am one of the admins that Quiddity spoke of, and I totally agree with his take on this issue. It is the behavior of Ronz, GraYoshi2x and others that have been bothering me. They have been inflexible in their zeal to apply guidelines with a strict orthodoxy that it is unwavering. They are wearing me out, and I've only recently come under their microscope because they followed Badagnani to List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. If their stalking and harassment are to be condoned, it will drive productive reliable editors away from Wikipedia. Sure, Badagnani may have his faults, and probably has overacted to the abuse that has come his way. But it seems far more understandable than the lack of good faith and rigidity I have seen from his accusers. If I were a newbie, I would have been gone a long time ago. My suggestion is that Ronz, GraYoshi2x and the rest be asked to refrain from policing topics they know nothing about and stop stalking and harassing Badagnani. The alternative, allowing them to continue unchecked, will drive eventualists out of Wikipedia, which to me is analogous to shooting yourself in the head. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't buy any of these black and white pictures. Badagnani is more intractable than "may have his faults", "a bit cantankerous". He's misunderstood, but he also treats others extremely disrespectfully at the first sign of disagreement - that I've seen. Those with whom he conflicts are neither saints nor thugs, either. Their interpretations of policy are good-faith, and they don't simply need to be warned away from "topics they know nothing about." That's a terrible solution. The best solution is to get Badagnani and the others to treat each other with respect and dignity, then focus on the articles, seek consensus on the policy questions, and get back to work already.

    Identifying good guys and bad guys is about as helpful as drama ever is, which is to say, it's the opposite of helpful. Nobody here is a "bad guy," nor is anyone an "innocent". These polarized descriptions do no one any service. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides, is it possible to ask these editors to avoid each other? Is it reasonable to suggest that if one of the parties to the conflict is working on or creates an article that the other parties to the conflict haven't worked on that they avoid it and vice versa? Would this at least stop the spread of the feuding to new areas?ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it clear who "the parties" are, exactly? Who specifically would have to agree to what? I don't mean to try and pin you down except insofar as we have to, in order to figure out what we might be able to arrange... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear who the parties are. I think it's up to them if they're willing to avoid each other. If that type of arrangement is acceptable it would be a great start and then only the existing battlegrounds would need to be resolved. If there is a determination to follow each other to an ever expanding circle of articles then it's an ever expanding problem. In that case I suppose Arbcom would be the next step, but that will be a long and ugly slog I think. It seems like there is enough work to be done that going their separate ways would be best. So that would be my preference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if an editor is behaving in a damaging way--not simply making decisions that others don't agree with, but making edits that even he can't or won't defend--the problem is not solved by telling those who keep confronting him about it to steer clear of pages that he's working on. Badagnani's conflicts are not limited to differences of opinion with a few specific editors. I stepped in on Spare ribs because I saw that Badagnani had removed a perfectly good contribution from a new editor, for no reason, and I was concerned about that new editor being turned off from Wikipedia. Propaniac (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, it seems nothing else will work. He contributes loads of information to Wikipedia (albeit with a few quirks), but he absolutely refuses and does not want to engage in proper discussion. Badagnani just ignores every statement other than his own and posts the same thing again and again, ad hominem. Coaxing, gentle encouragement, and admonishment all aren't working. To make matters worse, some editors were actually encouraging his behavior in the past and attacked some of us for what we were trying to do. GraYoshi2x►^talk 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that "nothing else will work". If you're willing to let me work with you... or are you as intractable as Badagnani, that other people's approaches aren't worth trying? There are absolutely strategies that you can employ that will improve the situation considerably. Are you willing to be someone who does that? It doesn't cost a penny to try, but you might have to swallow a little bit of pride. If I can do it, so can you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So edit wars and vendetta going on

Just check edit history of Badagnani and GraYoshi2x today. Now Badagnani is chasing every edit made by GraYoshi2x yesterday and today. Generosity and admonishment do not work so far.--Caspian blue 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's incredibly frustrating when an editor who goes on complaining about this so-called violation of WP:STALK is actually blatantly violating it himself. I would just like this to stop. GraYoshi2x►^talk 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he would like it to stop, too. Anyone can keep a dispute going; doing something to stop it is harder. "Documenting the problem," giving warnings, making accusations... none of these are de-escalatory behaviors, and I'm not impressed with anyone who isn't actively trying to de-escalate. If you want the unpleasantness to stop, let's think about how we can make that happen. You can't change other people, but you can change the way you react to them. GraYoshi2x, Caspianblue, others... there are ways in which you could react to Badagnani that would be very helpful. I'd like to see more of that, and less of the stagnant conflict that all of us are so tired of.

Be pro-active as a peacemaker, and things will start getting a lot better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs on this; you should've blocked both Badagnani and GraYoshi2x yesterday to prevent further disruptions when another edit wars and bickering began. And please don't drag me into the current dispute between Badagnani and GraYoshi2x or Ronz. However, it is obvious that his repeated disruption compelled you to report him at ANI. If Badagnani keeps coming with the same old problems and shenanigans to Korean cuisine/subjects, he has to face heavy criticism from editors working on the subjects such as me or other editors and admins". Badagnani is the main reason why I reduce to contribute to Korean cuisine. Badagnani has clashed with many many other editors for the difference between "copyediting vs blanking" when he even edits music articles. His accusation of "WP:Stalk" is really laughable. Why has he been Wikihounding and harassing of me, Jeremy, or Chris-Tanner, and Melonbarmonstar2? He has never answered to my questions on the subject. Now he revenges GraYoshi2x. --Caspian blue 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to tell me what I "should have" done when I was offline working on a graduate complex analysis exam? Do you know how much I get paid to be an admin here. That's right.

I'll ask you the same question I keep asking Badagnani... why not get another admin? If I'm so bad about doing what I "should" do, then surely one of the fifteen hundred others is better, right? If you cannot answer this question, then you are in no position to tell me what I "should" do.

Even when I am online, I follow a policy of not blocking people with whom I'm involved in a dispute. Otherwise, I would be a bad administrator. I will never block Badagnani, because we've had personal issues between us.

You seem to think I'm a policeman. I am 100% not a policeman. I try and resolve disputes, and I try to bring disputes to a place where we can work together. Want an enforcer? There are hundreds and hundreds of other admins. Why not get one? Just do it, already. If you can't, then admit that I might be worth listening to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're well aware of the ongoing disruption around Badagnani. Nobody here get paid and nobody get much appreciated compared to spent time and energy. You've been heard many times, generosity and mentorship do not work. Instead of wasting our time to mentor or educate Badagnani, the community may get compromised fruits (peace, perhaps) by instructing GraYoshi2x like whatever article Badagnani disrupts, just ignore him because he is condoned to do so. (but do you really think that letting Badaganani whatever he wants to do is good for developing the encyclopedia?)--Caspian blue 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a number of incorrect impressions of what I'm doing. When on Earth have I suggested, for example, "letting Badagnani do whatever he wants?" What planet were you on when you heard me say that? I don't expect to mentor Badagnani at all, but I continue to offer last chances, because that's what I do. If you don't like me doing it, convince the community to make me stop. I know what I believe in. If you want to tell me how to do my job the please, please, please, please, please... get another admin.

Why does anyone criticize me when it would be soooo easy to replace me. If I'm so wrong, then it's easy to find someone better. DO IT. If you won't, then stop telling me how to do my job. Isn't that fair? Either accept what I offer, or find a better offer. If you can't find a better one, then accept that you're stuck with me.

If you ignore this, then you are precisely the same as Badagnani. Why do you guys keep asking me for things you know I won't do. One thousand admins.... get busy and find the ones who will do what you want. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that you've condoned Badagnani to do whatever he wants nor you're a bad admin. I've thought the opposite and respect your patience. However, your stance as "let's everyone be happy together!" is not working as long as he refuses to acknowledge of the "core content policies", not "guideline" (how conveniently he claims this passage to advocate himself as a victim.) He first considers any copy-editing as blanking and gets hostile. For example, when "I" newly created some article" and relocated information for better readability, he absurdly accused me of blanking information (ha!) I have asked him nicely, do not insert his hidden remarks on articles, but he has completely ignored and taunted the request. His next step was attacking my English and background. His edit-warring over to keeping his snide hidden comments on the Korean cuisine article and attacks against Chris-Tanner got him blocked. People easily get fooled by the long list of his achievement (I did). However, that means an A-list of major cleaning. Why do we have to take the job on behalf of him? Wikipedia is not his repository to remind his forgotten memories. Civility is mutual, not for one side.--Caspian blue 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you think I advocate "let's everyone be happy together." Thank you for making it clear that you have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm challenging people to work hard. I'm not saying, "let's all be happy". I'm saying let's all be better than what we've allowed ourselves to be. Why don't you.... keep misrepresenting my position!? That sounds great! Do you even know what I advocate? Have a guess. Have three guesses; the first two don't have to count. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be specific and don't complain. I don't read your mind. Don't forget that you reported Badagnani to block him.--Caspian blue 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Badaganani is a good editor but somewhat conservative. Through working with him, I guess that he doesn't like to change status quo but he will listen if someone could discuss with him patiently. So I suggest that you people could do anything but don't ban him from Wikipedia.--Amore Mio (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My patience on him is dried out due to his constant harassment and wikistalking and disruptive editing over one year.--Caspian blue 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction Proposal

Unless you want to spend a huge amount of time at ArbCom to determine which claims of harassment are legitimate and which are not, I propose the following community restriction(s) for consideration to deal with the edit-warring as much as possible:

1. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are prohibited from reverting content more than once, per page, per day. Both editors are required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page.
2. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are prohibited from reverting content more than once, per page, per day. Both editors are required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should GraYoshi2x revert any edit made by Badagnani, such a revert must be made separately from any "bold edits" they wish to make. Should Badagnani revert any edit made by GraYoshi2x, such a revert must be made separately from any "bold edits" they wish to make. Failure to comply with this restriction will result in a ban from the affected page, set of pages, or topic. Bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to the affected user's talk page and logged it at /Community_sanction.
3. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should either or both editors make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, either or both editors may be accordingly banned from any affected page, set of pages, or topic. Bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to the affected user's talk page and logged it at /Community_sanction.
4. GraYoshi2x is prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Badagnani in any way (directly or indirectly). Badagnani is prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, GraYoshi2x in any way (directly or indirectly).

Please specify your support or oppose for each restriction (and preference). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. 2 - first choice, 1 - second choice, 3 - third choice, 4 - fourth choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why just GraYoshi2x? Isn't he just one of four or five editors that Badagnani has been complaining about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how you began the thread? They are the principal players (involved users) who are complaining here or being complained about (depending on who it is); they're using "wp:stalk" and the like in their edit summaries during edit-wars between each other; a glance through the contribution history of both editors seems to show that the problem needs to be settled with both users; other users don't appear to be such an immediate problem as far as I could tell. Correct me if I'm wrong. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good answer. :) I see the problem in a larger context than the events that led to this thread. I'd forgotten that we're not all speaking to that larger context. I see the real dispute as being one between Badagnani and a loosely defined group of five or six other editors, who are the people Badagnani claims are harassing and stalking him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Number 4, Strong support with the prohibition being on direct contact. I think indirect discussion has to be allowed as both should be able to seek out help from neutral parties. I would also add an additional caveat that they should avoid moving their conflict to any new articles created or heavily edited previously by one of the two editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I avoided indirect discussion was in case the restrictions are gamed (eg; asking another editor to do what you would've done if you hadn't been restricted, and then that editor doing so stating that he would've done it anyway etc. etc.) But I agree with your caveat; incidentally, administrators have generally made that assumption during enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A general comment, I'm not sure that Wikipedia works by preferential voting... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia works in a multitude of ways. If preferential voting works, which it sometimes does, then we use it. In other contexts, we do other things. Gauging consensus can be done in a multitude of ways. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11

I propose a topic ban, broadly encompassing all Judaism and Holocaust articles, for Statesboropow (talk · contribs). He is a Holocaust denier who has made few useful contributions to Wikipedia, and none in the area I'm suggesting banning him from (he only has 20 mainspace edits among his 150 or so edits.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rather swift review indicates that a topic ban, broadly construed, would in effect be a ban from editing Wikipedia. I am not adverse to that, but I think it a misnomer to call it "topic" when they are the only apparent areas of interest to this editor. Support, either way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has a few edits outside of Holocaust and Judaism related articles. Very few, but they're present. I fully support a topic ban or a community ban. We don't need this kind of contributor here. AniMate^talk 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd be wary of topic-banning an editor who hasn't been blocked yet. However, given that most of his edits have been ridiculous trolling on talk page articles, I support this proposal. Blueboy96 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite the noise-to-signal ratio coming from this editor. I was tempted to block for general abuse of editing privileges, but I will happily settle for a consensus here that (a) it's disruptive (b) a topic ban is appropriate. I support any of the sanctions proposed above, needless to say. ETA the more I see of the contribs, the less I like. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a brief topic ban (1-3 months?) if it's accompanied with mentorship, if not, indef topic ban with option to review behavior at 6 months. This statement pretty much sums up what the problem here is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that no mentor has offered services, much less been accepted. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like they're interested in collegiality. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i asked a few simple questions and i get nailed to the cross for it? why did women get a haircut before being gassed? no haircuts for the men? why did "especially pregnant women" who were not yet dead from the gas start to revive after being exposed to fresh air? the women who were not pregnant died quicker? there is no such thing as "denial" when you are talking about history some people have different views about everything in the world. from the existance of God to Big Foot. but you cant ask simple questions about the Holocaust? i am not a denier, you people are just closed-minded bigots. Statesboropow (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block, circumcise and salt the resultant wound. --WebHamster 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This is not the place to argue those issues; let the historians do that elsewhere; meanwhile, you do seem to be promoting a view contrary to the vast majority of that community, and per this and this, support for and our coverage of, these alternative viewpoints here would have to be both intellectually valid and given appropriate weight. Thus far, nobody appears to have achieved amendments to our existing coverage of the relevant topics. I doubt calling us "closet-minded bigots" is likely to help your case, but I'd be happy to block you indefinitely for persistent POV-pushing, edit-warring and disruption if your attitude doesn't mollify. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do what you want. Statesboropow (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like a bunch of quacking from Raquel Baranow—the usernames sound similar. MuZemike 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible, but didn't Raquel Baranow have a really insufferable way of spelling. She called it h-denial if I remember correctly and used internet jargon like "U" for "you". I think don't think this user is the same person, but we certainly don't need them around. AniMate^talk 07:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support block unless adoption or mentoring is offered and accepted. The "I'll do what I want" comment, as well as the tone of the editor's own comments on this page, cause me to regetfully think that this editor's interests conflict with those of wikipedia itself. John Carter (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

In view of the discussion above and in particular his replies in this thread, I have blocked Statesboropow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for being a WP:SPA dedicated to disruptive holocaust denial and anti-semitic soapboxing and making little if any useful contributions. Review of this block is welcome.  Sandstein  17:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I had little, if any, confidence that mentoring or adoption would have been successful, given the attitude displayed both here and elsewhere. Whilst I was waiting for him to step over the line once more, I think "sooner rather than later" is ultimately better for the encyclopedia and its community. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm not an admin, but a normal user. I realize that wikipedia is not a soapbox, unlike this user here who would not listen to reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Just a regular user's viewpoint: Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - But I really don't think it should be indef, about a month at the least.<small>'''''RandomGuy666'''''</small> (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Support - Indef block, as issued. I would suggest that the block could be shortened or lifted only if the user makes a conciliatory response on his Talk page, explaining what he would do differently in the future. He could voluntarily accept an editing restriction that keeps him away from the areas where his edits have been criticized. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gimmebot is removing transclusions of GA reviews from pages. There is no consensus to do so. Having the reviews on talk pages allows one to easily see the information related to the state of the article. I have contacted the bot operator, but he refuses to rectify the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review is link in the article history. Why does it need to be transcluded as well? Grsz¹¹ 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Wikipedia community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the removal, though there may be procedural questions to be raised with regard to WP:BRFA/WP:WGA. Skomorokh 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operator has refused to do so - see the above link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to bring this up at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard instead, where bot-operators and bot-approvers are more likely to see it, and it will be more clear what consensus is about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2 seems to be the task that allows the bot to work on the article review top business, in non-specific terms. I left a note at WT:GA. –xeno ^talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yea, it's a liberal interpretation of the task. –xeno ^talk 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what is to be done? The bot operator does not seem interested in rectifying the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rub

We have two issues here which are getting clouded. One issue is whether or not it is kosher to remove review transclusions. I'm going to go out on a limb (not much of one) and suggest that it is kosher to do so, just given the responses here. The other is whether or not a bot is allowed to do so without an authorization. We aren't a bureaucracy and we shouldn't let admittedly minor quibbles stymie editor participation, but we look rather a lot like a bureaucracy when bot-ops are concerned. We have policy and practice which reflects a community consensus to restrain bot edits prior to authorization rather than to bless those not reverted as good (in english, BOLD is for people, not bots). So I'm prepared to say that we should just open up another BRFA for the explicit task of removing transclusions. It will probably be a quick up and down approval.

In the absence of such an approval I'm going to ask that the bot operator stop removing GA review transclusions from pages. If they don't stop in 24 hours or start the process of getting approval in 24 hours I'll block the bot. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geometry guy has it about right. Whether or not to remove the transcluded review is a decision for the reviewer and/or interested editors, not one that a bot ought to be making. So I agree with your blocking proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"BOLD is for people, not bots.". That's a good line to remember when discussing 'bot behavior. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When did the bot start removing the GA review transclusions from talk pages? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pretty recent - unfortunately, the only way to definitely know may be looking through the diffs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. When the bot puts the GA review in article history, it is no longer is clickable. That is, clicking on GA reiew and date in the article history no longer brings up the GA review. This is confusing, as in the past a click would bring up the GA review just as it does the FAC review. Also, it this problem related to the fact that the GAN backlog report is no longer being updated? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The latter issue is completely independent (a different bot and bot operator). Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the additional comments above, I agree that the bot should not resume editing until these concerns are addressed. (I do note that neither the bot nor its op have edited recently, so a block may be unnecessary.) –xeno ^talk 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow runs the bot a couple of times a week, I believe. It does a lot of work for FAC, as well as doing article history and GA updates. Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a wonderful waste of time and effort. If you really think it necessary to fill out the brfa forms in triplicate for this task, you could have done so yourselves. I do not agree that bot policy requires it. (In fact, I would suggest that some of the admins who've commented above should read the bot policy again before they consider enforcing it.) I've been removing these transclusions for about a year as part of tidying up banners and talk pages. At some point, months ago (at least before January 2009), I was doing it so often that I added it to the code to avoid making two edits. I've been for the last two years now maintaining multiple parts of the GA process, including fixing all sorts of problems these transclusions cause. Commonly, they are not linked properly in the {{GA}} template, and when an article is moved, the transclusions often become redlinks. Given the unending problems that nobody else seems interested in fixing, and the nothing-but-grief I get for fixing them, the solution here is obvious. I'll keep doing FAC, and everyone can thank Rschen7754 for volunteering to do all other talk page template and related work from now on. Gimmetrow 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been extremely uncivil and consistently making ad hominem arguments in a number of discussions. His behavior in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay‎‎ has made the AfD almost impossible to follow. Consistently questioning the motives of those who disagree with him and posting long soliloquies as to why those opposed to his position should be reprimanded for disruption (if you expand the collapsed sections in the AfD you can see. Also, see if you can keep count of how many times he write my username or a variation of it instead of actually responding to the issues). He has also engaged in the same behavior at the BLP noticeboard and at Talk:James G. Lindsay#Source concern. Another instance is Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem#content_forking.3F where makes vague insinuations that antisemitic editors are the cause of a piece of 'referenced propaganda'. Having had this user accuse me personally of being an antisemite multiple times (see here), I am asking that somebody tell Wikifan12345 to stop questioning the motives of everyone he runs into. And if possible to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Nableezy has been threatening me for awhile now. While I don't plan on spending a long time defending myself, this whole issue stemmed from a feud at Charities accused of terrorism talk and article. He posted a dubious warning threatening a block if I continued edit warring. You see, Nab has a lengthy history of non-AGF editing, reverting material "to the line" and then reporting the competing editor to 3rr. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times. He's been blocked once but I didn't report him. Following our feud, he decided to throw my article I created up for AFD: Good faith? Sure. A user suggested I consider filing a report for harassment. I considered it, but decided no because those things rarely turn out well and plus it would probably exacerbate our feud even more. I certainly regret that.. In terms of my "behavior," I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. We were "fighting", I didn't get blocked as what usually happens, and 20 mins later he posts an AFD. I call him on it, and he writes that off. I spent a couple hours explaining the context of the article and why it should remain the best I could. I also pointed out the continous use of logical fallacies by the administrator involved. Is that disruption?

For Nableezy to cite prior action is kind of funny. Maybe we should link all of Nableezy's reports? I'm sure there are some on the servers. If you check the history, I questioned Nableezy's motives on my first reply at AFD. I can't say I'm sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Nableezy, you moved a typical I/P feud into unprecedented territory. It was vindictive, malicious, and creepy. I am truly tired of your hounding, stalking, spamming my userpage, whatever you call it, so next time I will file a report. Also, If I'm going to be blocked can we wait for the AFD to finish? I don't think it would be fair if I couldn't respond. Cheers :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just possible for you to respond to anything without an ad hominem attack? It was clear you couldn't do that in the AFD, on the [talk page and you seem incapable even here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I encourage you to fully read through the talk discussion to avoid misinterpretation of what occurred.? Notice my polite, cordial response to Falastine in talk, and his response: I know you are not for one to check and doublecheck sources, but I think this time you should. Maybe this time you will realize that you are wrong earlier rather than later. Falastine/Nableezy have a tag-teaming history in these sorts of articles, and Falastine and I have rarely co-existed in peace though I do my best to AGF if the situation merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

This relates to a feud between two editors from a contentious subject (Israel/Palestine), but it seems the problem is more broadly with Wikifan's combative attitude; he too often and too easily questions the good faith of other editors when they fail to agree with him. Frankly I don't see this changing without some form of escalation. See block log and eg Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei#Third Opinion, in addition to the AFD in question (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_G._Lindsay). Disclosure: I've been in fairly heated discussion with Wikifan on that AFD. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief review of the AfD at issue, as well as the recent contributions and block log of Wikifan12345, I agree that he seems to mistake Wikipedia for a battleground. Accordingly, I think I would support appropriate discretionary sanctions against him per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. This should not be construed as an endorsement of any actual misconduct by Nableezy.  Sandstein  12:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "brief review?" Such an enormous conflict that goes far beyond the "afd issue" should warrant more than a "brief review." The whole AFD was not in good faith. I've been blocked in the past for Nableezy's editing approach and POV-pushing. This is not so much a complaint as it is natural for these sorts of articles. Here, I'll give you a "brief" review: Nableezy stonewalls one article, fails to get my blocked through revert warring, files a report an article I created 20 mines later, and I'm supposed to "assume good faith" and be nice? Can you affirm that? I honestly I have no issue with an AFD of an article I created. I don't really care. But to say I wasn't being punished or this wasn't yet another Wikipedia:Gaming the system violation, is rather odd. In Pal/Israel articles controversy hostile editing is a given, but if we want to make this a he said she said debate I will gladly enumerate x "crime" committed by x criminal. Sandstein, I think we've been in prior disputes though I cannot remember. Is that a COI? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:COI does not apply in this context, but I would be forbidden from taking administrative actions (such as imposing blocks or other sanctions) against you as long as we two are in an ongoing dispute. I know of no such dispute, though. Disagreeing with you on conduct issues or having previously taken administrative action (if any) against you does not constitute an ongoing dispute.  Sandstein  16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what does apply is WP:BAIT. Wikifan12345 may be dealing a little badly with some baiting, but doing that is not always easy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, considering Nableezy's history of rather "unique" editing, is it not fair to say this noticeboard is simply another transfer of hostility from one page to the next? Has this not become a pattern? Perhaps I should have sent everything off to the courts instead of spending my time to defending an AFD, that as far as I'm concerned was not in good faith. Not the least bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going WP:LEGAL, are we? pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 15:17

Ok obviously my message isn't being sent or it isn't wanted. I've provided all that I can. Any further questions will be responded to, just hopefully they are questions. ;D Feel free to block me, though again can we wait for the AFD to finish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I read the WP:Legal. Did I make a legal threat? My use of the term "courtroom" was a reference to how users use wikipedia as a courtroom rather than a place for collaboration and (hopefully) neutral editing. Apologies for the confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious AfD over a minor subject. Reminds me of deletion debates over marginally notable garage bands. The subject of the AfD doesn't seem very notable; I looked him up in Google News archives and found nothing. --John Nagle (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I once had a disruptive user- an obvious vandal- refer an article I'd written for speedy deletion. I didn't even think of disputing the deletion on the grounds that the referring editor was a vandal with a grudge. I just looked at the article, recognized that it really was pretty weakly sourced, and found the sources I needed to show that the subject really did meet the notability criteria. I'll tell you a secret- there's one article I created that I'm not 100% sure would survive an AfD. I'm really fond of the article, too. If someone wanted to really do something mean to me, they could refer it to AfD, and I'd have to just take a deep calm breath, make a single comment in the discussion about why I think it should be kept, and hope it made it through the discussion. (No, I won't tell which one. I'm not crazy.) That's because it wouldn't do much good to protest that the other editor had impure motives, and I know it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs)

Ha! Oh! I think I know! May I? Can I? Oh, FisherQueen, do something evil to me and I'm spilling the beans! I love power... Left unsigned since I am incognito, bwuhahaha! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Oops![reply]

Arguments over AfDs often get heated. I have seen worse than this one, and no one got blocked. As for the article, it seems pretty well sourced in a way that establishes notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have too. I remember Israel and the Apartheid analogy (allegation, conspiracy, propaganda...pick your favorite). That AFD was a doozy. And there were 7 of them....LOL. I believe arguments for deletion/keep should be directed at the AFD and not posted here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing with ad hom in the AfD, here. Nableezy (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Adhom. I didn't use it as argument. Epstein did accuse me of promoting blood purity (among other things) and we've been separated since. I'm not questing his motivates, I was simply bringing to light a past, notable occurrence that may reflect his POV. His points were generally the same. This isn't similar to a user creating an AFD to attack and punish another for whatever personal disputes said user might have. ;D Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a suggestion: you two stay the hell away from each other and away from I-P articles and deletion discussions. All of a sudden there will be no dispute. //roux   23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nab was never involved in the article prior to the AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the 'you two stay the hell away from each other' bit was there. How about it.. stay the hell away from each other and from I-P articles. Looks like the end of the disputes would be in about three minutes. Or you could keep fighting with each other. Hmmm... //roux   23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually dont think I have done anything wrong, and if somebody could point out what I have done wrong (somebody besides WF) I would gladly correct my behavior. And I have gotten along well with a number of users on the opposite side of the spectrum from me, this isnt an issue of my editing in I/P articles, this is an issue with the behavior of a certain user over a large number of articles, attacking and harassing a large number of other users. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nableezy may be strong minded and indeed hails from a certain perspective in the Israeli-Arab dispute but it's best to avoid making allegations to someone's perceived motives. If there's a real issue of failure to adhere to NPOV or Harassment, then this should be noted on a relevant forum rather than the editors picking a fight. That said, Arab-Israeli articles often get heated up and just a couple minutes ago, Nableezy's companion on perspective on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict suggested I'm using drugs "to get a point across". I'd suggest Wikifan12345 make note that he'll make an effort to avoid assuming bad faith and Nableezy will note that he'll make an effort to avoid the appearance of following Wikifan12345's contributions history page and we'll end this at that.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my 'companion' and when that user made a particularly vicious personal attack on WF I was the one who called him out on it. And I haven't followed WF, I can show that exactly how I found the article and when I wanted to delete it (shortly after it was created, but I gave him time to bring it up to standards) Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank Nableezy,

You've just added a pointy provocation on that talk page which, in my perspective, doesn't help your case here.[19] I'd suggest you (a) take the above note not to use wikipedia as a battleground, and (b) that you make an effort to avoid even the appearance of following Wikifan12345 or provoking him. Wikifan12345 should, in all fairness, make a sincere attempt at avoiding allegations of bad faith as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything, considering what you have been arguing on that page that isnt exactly a provocation. But that is neither here nor there. Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I threw up one of Nableezy's articles up for deletion moments after a dispute failed to block one of us, I'm sure he'd be crying too. Probably demand admins ban me 4 liiiife. He wouldn't be the first. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above is an attempt at humor. Try not to construe it as actual argument/personal attacks/trolling/teh wikifan111!!! Cheers Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GF isn't a right. I assume whenever possible, but Nableezy lost that days ago. Plus, let's be real...the kind of articles we edit, butting heads is part of the process. But what happened here was ridiculously frustrating. I do not believe this noticeboard post, or any of his involvement in the AFD/article can be characterized as sincere. I just don't want to get to a point where someone expects me to apologize outside of perceived unorthodox (euphemism) attitude. Though its manifestations can be found easily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Wikifan12345.

You don't have to apologize for losing your good faith momentarily but you do have to make an effort to avoid bad faith and butting heads; especially with Nableezy as you two have built up a "situation". Let me know if you need advice on working through this issue.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: context aside, Wikifan12345 seems to be taking the bad faith allegations issue with a bit too much humor to my liking and "context" which Nableezy is using as an excuse to making pointy provocations and following a user's contribution history page was also used by the fellow who was suggesting I'm doing drugs (context is the excuse for everything I guess). If neither editor is willing to accept my suggestion or at least present a note which shows they understand what the problem this discussion was started for is, I'd be suggesting a short term topic ban to get the point across. Basically, I'm currently in a content dispute with Nableezy so I'd suggest that he'd still be allowed to argue that one if end result is them being topic banned for a short period of time. Anyways, this suggestion is more of a nudge to make the parties understand the issue and address it than an actual topic ban proposal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to say I am following a user's contribution history provide some justification for it. I havent made any excuses for anything. All I have asked for here is that somebody tell WF to stop with the questioning of others motives and to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the agreement? I wont' follow Nableezy around? Sure. I've made a consistent effort in avoiding him whenever possible. It is my personal opinion he is the one who tends to get involved when I'm editing: my first edit April 11 2009 The dispute originated from this article., Nableezy's first edit, April 13 2009.  : first edit at Lindsay was the AFD.

Now whether this is a sinister plot to annoy wikifan and reveal his true identity can be argued indefinitely. I am not saying this is a trend, that Nableezy deliberately checks each and every one of my edits to look for possible holes and exploit them. No, that's retarded. But to say we just happen to "cross-paths" is naive.

I don't want anyone banned, certainly not topic banned. I would however like to see a close to this dispute or some sort of mutual agreement where we try to avoid each other whenever possible. Perhaps relay disagreements to 3rd parties or disengage altogether. Tryin to problem solve... Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a step in the right direction and I would advise that you assume good faith in general if you don't want a similar thread opened a second time. While it's not mandatory for the closure of this thread, I'm hoping Nableezy will follow suit with a comment that acknowledges the issue as well so that we know both parties will make an effort.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have had that page in my watchlist since reading Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and discovering the category. Did I revert your edit? No, I thought it was fine. I started editing that article after a few users tried to remove completely well sourced statements. You have this idea that I care about what you do, I dont, much less why you do it. My whole concern here is your behavior at the various forums in which we have met, the BLP noticeboard, the AfD, the various talk pages where I have had to deal with you. I didn't even bring you here for attacking me, nor did I you when made accusations of being an antisemite against me. I brought this up because you consistently question the motives of everybody who disagrees with you. An admin says that a piece of text is a copyvio, you question her motives and reasons for saying so. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk again. Fal misrepresented the article and my claim was COI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I haven't read too much into the talk pages and articles where Nableezy and Wikifan have interacted, but it seems Wikifan has been uncivil on a number of occasions. I agree with him that no one should be blocked or topic-banned (if this problem ceases that is), but he has to realize that before this dispute could be closed, he must always try to assume good faith (I know sometimes it's hard), act in a civil manner when interacting with other editors, and not accuse other editors of perceived personal POVs. I also do agree with Wikifan that both Nableezy and him should avoid each other whenever possible, although you guys edit articles within the same scope, so it might be difficult. Just try to keep conflict to a minimum or you could be blocked for a long period of time since you've already been blocked twice before. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to everyone who sees it just as an issue between these two editors, a look at the AFD shows Wikifan comments like Rd232 wants "this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol", pointless comments like this that do nothing other than inflame others and regardless of whether or not he's right, this comment isn't going to help matters at all. Look, I know this area is bad, but I've been working in the Macadonia headache for long enough to just say that users who just attack everybody they disagree with aren't helpful here. If Nableezy is stalking, he needs to stop right now, but Wikifan isn't a complete victim in this stuff. He's exacerbating the situation and needs to not do that. And this is humor of some bizarre type, the fact that so many people aren't finding it funny should tell him to cut it out right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, but to put your mind at ease for any future article that I want to edit for the first time, I will check the history and if Wikifan12345 shows up in the last 50 edits I will stay away from the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy - i dont think that is necessary. you have done nothing wrong - nominating an article for deletion is not harassment. if the article meets notability guidelines, it will be kept. wikifan should not be able to bully you into agreeing not to edit any article he edits. everyone who works in this area has had editors from the other pov "show up" on pages they haven't been to before, sometimes because the article was posted on a project board, sometimes because they (possibly) looked at another editor's contribs. i think it needs to be made clear that hounding and harassment are only valid complaints when the accused editor is disruptive, vandalizing, or editing against policy. "i think he might have looked at my contribs and followed me there and opposed me" shouldn't be a valid complaint. i think everyone who edits in the i/p area could claim harassment if that were the case. untwirl(talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Honestly, if the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Israeli-Palestinian articles mean anything - anything at all - then Wikifan12345 should be topic-banned at the very least. The behavior on this thread alone and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay is sufficiently poor. Combine it with this editor's history, block log, unconstructive style of interaction, and the fact that virtually all of his contributions to the encyclopedia appear agenda-driven, and you have someone who has "repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior, and normal editorial process."

That said, I'm not going to take action. I'm feeling too old and tired at the moment to put up with the inevitable round of accusations of bias, closet racism, and "he did something even worse!" that tend to crop up whenever any administrative action is proposed or taken against editors in this particular arena of combat. Someone Else's Problem. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345 has not been editing all that long, and -- because warnings come more often than helpful advice when editing disputed articles -- what may be needed is not more warnings and blocks, but some helpful advice. Any editor, so focused on editing disputed articles, will be at risk of burnout. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's part of the process. If editors started reporting users on the opposite POV fence more often, probably half of everyone involved would be topic-banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never implied users were antisemitic at Judaization of Jerusalem. I said the article was a content fork, biased, and propaganda. I also said many of the users involved typically belong to certain group editors (who often edit together, almost collectively) that tend to not be particularly objective towards Jews/Israeli's. I was just being honest. The editing approach was far from neutral or balanced, and its survival of an AFD was entirely dependent on the sheer amount of POV division (both sides) rather than actual quality. Apologies if there was any misinterpretations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topicban for Wikifan12345

In the Pages Middle Power and Great Power several IPs used by the same user have been removing large amounts of information. Specifically, ones that say that some academics consider United Kingdom and France middle powers instead of great powers. Because of his action, he has gotten the Great Power page protected atleast twice. Once the protection was gone, he went back to doing the same thing. In the page middle power, it's the exact same thing. And he also has gotten the page protected twice, and has refused to talk.

User:Ged_UK has done one of the page protections on Great Power while User:SoWhy has done the rest of the protections on Great and Middle power against this vandal.

Great Power revision history (first 2 pages when you have it showing 250 edits) Great Power revision history

Middle Power revision history (first page when you have it showing 250 edits) Middle power revision history

Each time, he has refused to discuss the problem at all, despite all the times the pages were locked. Here are all of the different IPs he has used. The earliest edit has been March 28th, the latest being today. The only times there were edits were when the IP was blocked, or the page was protected.

90.211.80.206

90.211.80.247 warned once.

90.211.80.194

90.211.80.245 warned once.

90.219.153.48 warned once and was asked to discuss the problem.

90.211.80.240 warned once.

90.211.80.252

90.219.153.45

90.212.93.32

90.219.254.27 warned once.

90.208.152.236 warned once

90.219.153.34 warned and blocked (might be unblocked now)

90.218.53.199 warned and blocked (might be unblocked now)

The worst part is, the IP knew it got the warnings. Several times if you look at the contributions, one of the IPs went to an old IP with a warning, and deleted it. Several times during the revision history and atleast on one of the talk pages, the IP was asked to discuss the problem. The IP has not done it at all. I think the only solution is a range block. Deavenger (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AIV Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an occasional contributor to these articles and more frequent contributor to their talk pages. They are magnets for nationalist POV pushers. But in spite of previous differences, there is now general agreement among their regular editors. I cannot abide by editors who edit without giving edit summaries or discussing their case on talk pages. This seems to be a case of the same editor using multiple IPs, or some kind of concerted deletion by a pressure group of material which it does not happen to like. Viewfinder (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a range of IPs. Unless someone more IP-savvy than I decides to implement rangeblocks, I think further semi-protection may be the best solution. If they won't talk, we can't explain to them how Wikipedia works, and how content decisions are made. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, we have tried telling the user multiple times to discuss on the talk page, and left warnings on atleast 8 of the accounts. Multiple times, he used a similar IP to go and delete the warnings from the previous account, and had a user warn against doing that. I see the only solution as a rangeblock. Deavenger (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90.212.93.22 Another one just happened -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) started a Request for Comment at the talk page of a WP:GA-quality rated article, 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, by inappropriately framing the name of the subsection of the RFC in a POV manner, as: this comment in the lede falsifies the facts. and portrays a biased pov. The WP:RFC process is meant to gather outside opinion in a neutral manner, and present the ongoing dispute in a matter-of-fact presentation. Clearly the subsection and presentation of the RFC initially by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) blatantly failed to present the matter in a WP:NPOV fashion. I reformatted the RFC in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner, with the subsection title of simply: RfC: High-ranking followers. After three other users commented in the RFC aside from myself and Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Off2riorob changed the RFC back to his POV framing of the dispute [24], and also incorrectly changed the RFC to be a Request for Comment on policy [25].

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) also has a history of POV framing of disputes and misuse of the Wikipedia:Third opinion process, examples include: comment in the lede protrays a biased pov and falsifies the facts. and the subject has more than one name so for clarity in the lede I feel it benefits the clarity of the article to also linking Rajneesh to the name used now and a little rewrite to improve the English.

Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#Disruptive_behavior_and_incivility_by_User:Off2riorob, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Disruption_from_two_users_at_a_GA-rated_article, and block log.

Other than myself and Off2riorob (talk · contribs), three users have commented:

• Jayen466 commented I can't honestly say I find the sentence misleading. The people involved were the most high-ranking followers of Rajneesh at the time.
• Peteforsyth commented I agree with Jayen and Cirt that I simply can't understand how the current phrasing gives any false impression
• Momoricks commented: The truth or falseness of the term "high-ranking followers" (or the rest of the article, for that matter) is irrelevant per the verifiability policy. The article exceeds the policy requirements by providing several reliable sources that use the term "high-ranking". As Peteforsyth stated above, a version of the article that includes the term met the good article criteria. I support keeping the wording as is.

Admin EncMstr commented on the talk page to Off2riorob (talk · contribs): Cirt's question is perfectly on point. Please answer it or quit arguing that synthesized words should be added. - in response Off2riorob (talk · contribs) assumes bad faith, does not respond to the substance of the comment by EncMstr, and instead calls him "tag teaming".

This user is a disruptive WP:SPA who has done nothing but complain and be disruptive at a WP:GA-rated quality article, and disruptively frames the dispute resolution process to suit his POV. The user has already been blocked twice for disruption on the same topic of Rajneesh (indeed, this same article), and I think further admin action is warranted here. I would appreciate it if another administrator could look into this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was considering a block based on edit-warring within the subject matter of the RFC. (for instance this one.) My perception is that the editor in question is enthusiastic, and is very quick to use dispute resolution tools that he doesn't clearly understand yet. It's becoming a bit of a tax on WP's resources (i.e. the time and patience of more experienced editors and administrators). -Pete (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's requested adoption and was adopted shortly before this block was implemented. Let's hope that sets things on track. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Striking this, as there is still an unblocked sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the previous report, another sockpuppet Duh Elk At War (talk · contribs) was created; see comment. Can someone look into this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked by YellowMonkey. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's likely another Orbro (talk · contribs). His fourth edit is to the userfied version of one of MS's articles talking about the sources "he" had added long ago; [26]. This one isn't doing anything disruptive yet, though. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I don't like blocking him until he gets disruptive, always hoping he'll someday learn how to get along here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... community banned. He lies, makes up sources, inserts false information into articles, attacks the sanity of those who disagree with him, and has done so with going on 100 new socks in the past four months (his entire wikipedia career involved many other socks to avoid scrutiny going back years -- no one ever noticed). Banned is banned, and he had about 10 "last chances."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Yes, I do see it that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please report these as a sockpuppet investigation so we can keep tracks of his socks. Can't find anything though, you might want to poke Nishkid64 about it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that MS means Manhattan Samurai, shouldn't someone be opening up a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai? This is the logical place to file any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. As you'll see the last one was declined per DUCK. Why spend all that time filing a report that isn't going to be looked into? Just RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even a trivial sock freshens up the data that can be used by checkuser. I suggest starting a list on the *Talk* page of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai to keep the info from being lost. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet. Orbro (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet not a single person told you of this thread, and you found it anyway. Gwen, Jeremy, Bali, please block this blatant sock and we can get this over with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an SPI, found here. Please add any new socks you come across.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B9 hummingbird hovering‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked following a 3RR report by User:Mitsube. Since then the user has continued editing using IP 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) to:

• Complain about the block at WP:AN3 (this is perhaps understandable/excusable)
• Complain at User_talk:Mitsube, including this troubling postscript: [27], [28]
• Complain (with minor incivility thrown in) at the blocking editors talk-page: [29]
• Continue edit-warring in mainspace: [30]

Note that an unblock request by the user was reviewed and rejected by User:Toddst1. Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Blocking followed by evasion to complain about the block/admin instead of using the {{unblock}} template seems to be a growing trend. :I've extended the block on B9 hummingbird hovering (talk · contribs) for continued edit warring through a block-evading sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To any administrator considering shortening or removing the 3RR/sockpuppet block on B9 please see [31]. While I realize the incident that resulted in the block was not content-related, I think it has revealed that there is a long-running problem with this editor. Maybe this isn't the right forum for such a discussion and maybe the block isn't the right sanction, but I think Abecedare quite succinctly captured the essence of (what I at least) feel the problem with B9 and why it's been difficult if not impossible to remedy. I wouldn't want to see that overlooked. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new account, Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs), who is doing copy and paste merges on a number of articles dealing with the Etruscans, eg the new article Hypotheses and theories for Etruscan origin (and note that it has "a suggestion offered thirty years ago" whereas the book in questin was written in 1841) - the edit history gives no clue as to which articles (I know of at least two) the material was moved from [32]. Another example is the article Etruscan civilization, edit history here: [33]. I've raised the content issues elsewhere [34] but given his lack of response on his talk page to various requests (although he's now protested on my talk page about my reverting him), I'm not sure what to do about the fact he doesn't seem to understand or care that he's losing the history of the material he's moving around. Is this something I should just ignore, or if not, can anyone else suggest a way of getting him to stop? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he won't play the game, then he needs to be blocked. Cut-and-paste moves aren't allowed and he shouldn't be doing them. I think that reverting, or if that's not technically possible, then WP:SPLICEing would be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merging articles because all of them "lack sources" and are "badly written" even by my standards and i'm merging information to other articles. On the other hand, i'm modling the article after Ancient Rome. To merge it back is wrong because your version lacks sources / references which i'm fixing. I've added new citations to un-referenced sentences. If i'm doing something wrong you "unagree" with tell me. But merging articles that are in "bad shape," "un-referenced," "small" and needs "serious clean up" is not wrong. If you want to fix this re-write the articles and "expand" them. But don't revert it back to a states were it has "wrong" information which you would all agree wouldn't help the wikipedia "at all, would it?" --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will copy on your talk page to make this clear, but...

We are not saying that you should not improve the articles. What we're saying is that you can't do that by cutting and pasting.

That's not a style issue. It's a legal issue. When you cut and paste like that, you copy text from one article without attribution to the new article. The GFDL license which Wikipedia operates under requires that Wikipedia maintain attribution for all editors' contributions.

We do and will block you if you continue to violate our licensing terms.

Improving articles is encouraged. Please keep doing that. But don't violate the license.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, if an article "is not up to shape" independently, what should you do about it. The article is to short and to find a "quick sollution" you can merge it and later "re-establish" the page and re-write it and make the encyclopaedia better place. Many of these articles aren't so popular, take a look at the Etruscan history page, its history page counts a little more then 20 edits May, 2007. People havn't worked on this article since Botteville created the article and it doesn't seem any of you are trying to "expand or help it either!" That article is enough for a reasonable section in the Etruscan main page, take a look for yourself. That page is to "short" and "no one seems to be working on it! NB!"

Talking of copy and past, take a look at the Ancient Roman society, its entirely copy-pasted, why havn't you done anything with that article? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article was not a copy paste, it was a split that was reversed and the newer page simply neglected to be removed. You need to be very careful what you accuse others of just because you are in the hot seat.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article should be merged, propose a merge, and then have someone who's done merges and knows how to merge article histories properly do it. That avoids losing track of who wrote what.

We're not disagreeing that articles need improvement. As long as the improvement doesn't break the license, please do so!

Regarding Ancient Roman society - a 25k article springing up out of nowhere is a little suspicious, yes. Where do you believe it came from? What was it copy-pasted from? I'm not familiar with the topic well enough to know the other related articles. Or do you think it came from an off-wiki source? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It came from Ancient Rome --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [35] - someone needs to have a word with the editor, who is still active. I've fixed the Etruscan origins article, not without a struggle. :-) I'm getting some resources for it also. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah. It looks like nobody who understands the copyright issues saw it at the time, on first impression. Good spot there, Trust. Thanks for letting us know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused and very concerned that my membername and a suggestion from last July that was settled long ago is coming back here as a discussion somehow linking me to another member. I do not know what the problem is with the above talk discussion but I have not edited on that page (Ancient Rome) in some time. I don't think I have ever edited on the Etruscan Origins article.

My main area of edits has been on the Theatre of Pompey article, as well as Rostra and a few others. Recently I became aware of a number of Copyright issues involving images. I have asked for speedy deletion of a number of images with improper lisence and one that was improperly released into the public domain. As for copy and paste, I look very closly for this and spotted one on the Pantheon article, which I brought to the attention of editors there who chnaged the wording that was lifted exactly from an off site article. Please explain what exactly do I have to do with this subject?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand what is going on. Last July I made a bold change on the Ancient Rome article. I split the article by removing the society section and creating the new Roman Society article as part of that split. It was reversed and then i began that talk section. It was decided that the article can be as long as it needs to be without splitting it. The only problem is....the Roman Society article was never deleted.

I do not understand the accusations of copyright or mention of off site stuff. This was simpoly a split that was reversed and noone thought to get rid orf the other page.

Instead of making mountains out of mole hills just request the article be speedily deleted. Hell, I'll do that. I am still confused as to exactly why "someone needs to have a word" with me. What exactly was wrong with what I did? I made a bold edit. It was reversed and discussed. The only mistake that I can see is forgetting to have the article deleted. Does this clear anything up for you guys. GEEEESH!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry about this too much. The way we uncovered it raised a lot of questions, but we assume good faith and there was a perfectly reasonable explanation here. No harm, no foul. Thanks for helping clear it up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will admit I was upset by the direction this was beginning to take. I value my membership here and I dislike copyright violations.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no doubt about that myself. You've been doing a good job. Thanks for the quick action on the redundant article. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was brought up some time ago, but I didn't see the thread for it here or in the archives. Could an admin take a look at that mess of an AfD and try to clear out some of the socks that have contributed to this article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree with you that it's a mess of an AFD, I personally don't think there needs to be any cleaning up. It's pretty obvious to me on how I'd close the AFD... and it's not in favor of the socks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's going to get ugly. One of the SPAS (maybe they're all the same guy, not sure) is edit warring to have a screen capture from myspace in their, generally making the format of the page unreadable (i guess a screencap might be a copyvio, but i don't care about that. It's just rude and makes the AFD very difficult to follow).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've semiprotected the page, blocked the following obvious socks:
      1. Commotion777 (talk · contribs)
      2. ItsRTime (talk · contribs)
      3. Hollowinsideandout (talk · contribs)
      4. Mangie80 (talk · contribs)
      5. TheGrooveGuru (talk · contribs)
    • and left a note on the AFD page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tied to this - can anyone find any evidence that The Reign is a) real and b) went down as described in that article. Looking at the timings and the version history it looks like it was created solely to support the article discussed here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If The Reign is a hoax, it's one that Christina Milian is included in perpetrating, since she asserts that she attended the event, and was surprised to find that she wasn't hosting it, as she had been led to believe.
      • Robbie Daw (2006-07-01). "One in a Milian". Instinct. Instinct Publishing, Inc.
      • "Christina Milian and Eric West CO-host "The Reign" Fundraiser, an Event to Raise Funds to Fight HIV/AIDS Around the World" (Press release). The Reign. 2005-08-05.
    • But she apparently doesn't (or didn't) know anything about this Eric West.
      • Jawn Murray (2006-09-18). "BV Buzz: Sept. 18, 2006". AOL Black Voices. AOL.
    • Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was brought up at WP:AN and not here. MuZemike 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion is a mess and is very difficult to follow. I !voted to Delete based on the notability merits, but I think the discussion has been poisoned by the rather obvious external campaign to influence it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've closed the discussion as "Delete"--agree that there was some pretty serious sockpuppetry going on, but there was a pretty clear consensus to delete once you got past it. Blueboy96 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've deleted The Reign as a copyright infringement of this. Rodhullandemu 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the OP, the original thread on this is now archived here, although there's not a great deal on it. – iridescent 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though thechnically within the limits set by 3RR, this has been going for weeks now. Please watch the situation and the discussion on the talk page. A couple of editors eradicate a lot of sourced material, get reverted, yet continue to revert instead of trying to reach a consensus, effectively saying that they don't like the stuff. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) is particularly unhelpful, regularly jumping in from nowhere to help the other editor "win" edit wars across a wide range of articles (edit summaries: I support Offliner, Rv to Offliner version. Agree with him, Offliner rules). Most of BFF's contributions there and elsewhere in the mainspace (possibly even all of them) have been reverts to his favorite versions. I think that is not exactly constructive behavior, but he doesn't seem to listen to others. Colchicum (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page for now. Nakon 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that BFF is unhelpful. He is after all the editor who uncovered the original research done by Martintg on the Treptower war memorial article - original research which was edit warred over, and reinserted, even by Colchicum. The reason for the removal is CLEAR. Biophys has taken it upon himself to create multiple POV-forks with the same content. You will argue to keep such rubbish, you will realise that this WILL have consequences for articles; in this case, duplicated material which has been forked has been reduced and removed from the main article. This is entirely inline with forking of content. And Colchicum, you know, people in glass houses, and all that. All I have seen you doing lately is calling editors Nazis (with no apology forthcoming), referring to editors as trolls, and calling other editors pigs. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised? How is this rant relevant here? How is this related to the edit-warring campaign? For the record, sure, I am not going to apologize for what I have never done. I have never called any Wikipedia editor Nazi. I understand what pun from a distant past you may be referring to, but the rest is only your wishful interpretation, now bordering on obsession. The case is resolved for now, thanks, Nakon (though it will hardly work in the long run), so what is the point? The question is rhetorical, of course. And trolls are trolls, QED. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7 has violated WP:NPA. [36] JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like a personal attack at all. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe JCDenton's talking about the edit summary? Pretty tame, though, if that's the case. Kcowolf (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a provacator anyways? It seems like a video game, unless he means provacateur. -download | sign! 01:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of vindicator as in the old video game Vindicators. MuZemike 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest we do something productive? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear it up, this was a response to me mentioning his lack of neutrality on another page. This is not a personal attack. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor has lashed out with a vicious personal attack against me here. This is the IP's only edit ever to WP, which makes me think it is likely a sockpuppet, as well. NoCal100 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and blocked. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time we get users insisting that the World Series has no right to call itself a "world championship" and they post editorializing comments to that effect. Usually one reversion and a warning are enough. Sometimes a block is needed. This is a little different, as Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insist on this point, despite being opposed by other editors so far, even with one editor posting some (additional) explanatory material on the matter. Can something be done to stop that guy's editorializing? He won't listen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one day for disruptive editing. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like how p'd I am that the Miss Universe pageant doesn't have contestants from Pluto, or even from outside of the System of Sol? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I have the distinct impression that some of the contestants are from some species based upon silicone derived lifeforms... (the need to breathe methane, as opposed to the carbon/oxygen relationship in the known lifeform systems contributes, I am certain, to the "air headedness" of some of the comments) while others simply appear to be from another planet/reality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) impersonated Megan1967 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of JamesBurns (talk · contribs). The account was mainly used for discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyde, identified as a sock there, but never blocked AFAIK. Is there a reason for not blocking it? Would an admin mind doing so? I know it's a very (c)old case, but atm all AfDs where JB or one of his socks contributed to are being revisited. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi HexaChord, according to the block list the account is blocked, but not according to the block log, which is weird. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. I wasn't clever enough to look at the block list. Maybe it's missing in the block log because it's very old? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The account shows as blocked shame on whoever tried to make like they were Megan. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two other socks from above Afd, Spyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Zoombini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seem not to be blocked at all, right? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So very old, thanks for bringing them up but otherwise there seems aught for an admin to do, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of them edited again two years after the AfD and could be used again as soon as needed for whatever. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne. It appears that the impersonated account was itself an impersonation. So your comment applies twice over. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Though I would acknowledge that JBSupreme has made several key improvements to articles, at other times, he is obscene and a borderline vandal...and many people have called him on his talk page for this. At numerous times, he has deleted long-standing, accurate and cited portions of articles for virtually no reason at all. When he does so, his edit summaries have either been blank, leaving little or no reason for the deletions, or obscene, laced with profanity and call-outs. Numerous user complaints can be found at his talk page. I would note that this is not the first time an incedent has been lodged against him. Thank you, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purplebackpack89, in my humble opinion your complaint is more suited to dispute resolution. In particular, I suggest you have a look at Wikiquette alerts and Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 ... just a few days ago the issue of his rude edit summaries was discussed in this very forum right here. You will also note on his talkpage, he was advised that it was better to leave no edit summary than to be rude. Have there been additional rude incidents in the last 2 days? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He trashed one section of an article I added, then when I used another as precedent, he trashed that too. I put them back, and again and again he trashed them and hurled baseless accusations at me. See his talk page for more info Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have accused him of being rude in edit summaries above - my point was that we have already dealt with that issue, and he has not been uncivil in summaries since that time (unlike yourself "slapping on protection in light of penis hack and elimination of my subheadings"). You are currently involved in a content dispute. Content disputes need to be solved by WP:CONSENSUS on the article talkpage, and not here in WP:ANI. I will also warn you about WP:3RR on the same article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: penis hack was when somebody deleted a section of an article and replaced it with "penis" a bunch of times. I still maintain that JBsupreme is too trigger-happy and heavy-handed in addition to his edit summaries, and should be banned Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:PhilKnight, this is more suited for WP:RFC/U. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chinabluemultipack is clearly a vandalism-only account and I recommend that it is closed immediately. Please see the contributions history for verification. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:Ironholds was having difficulty merging Deepnet Explorer into the Web Browsers article as this account believes that the software is not notable enough to have an article on its own. I'm just requesting an expert opinion as to whether it should be merged to Web Browsers or a similar article or allowed its own article. Either way, I don't think it should be removed from Wikipedia. --Sky Attacker (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What administrative action are you requesting? shoy (reactions) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting urgent action before the article gets bamboozled by the speedy-delete machine. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what action is called for. Deepnet Explorer was quite rightly tagged for deletion as lacking any reliable sources or claim of notability; if you think that the subject is indeed notable, you should add the necessary reliable sources that would prevent deletion. No administrative action is required for that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! I'm asking would it be better to merge it into a bigger article, so that the content won't be deleted. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even merged, it would still require reliable sources to establish its credentials for being worthy of mention. If it's deleted, it can be emailed to you so you can work on it in your own userspace; but unsourced, it's not going to hang around for long anywhere. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]