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

---

Resolved

 – Community sanctions 1 and 2 have significant community support and will be enacted and logged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.

• In June 09, Pedant made this edit with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" - this was reverted. In Sept 09, Pedant made this edit which was reverted. There was agreement on the talk page here that the edit was not constructive.
• In Oct 09, Pedant reverted to "restoring constructive edits pending explanations for their removal". This was reverted with the summary "edits violated WP:OR, see also talk page from prev". This was followed by this brief discussion; brief given that the discussion took place between Oct 2009 and Apr 2010. Here, Pedant threatens to revert again on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support of Pedant's actions. Pedant also starts making assertions about no "fact-based" consensus.
• In other words, all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT etc.)
• On 11 Jun 2010, again without consensus, Pedant reverted with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" to his version.

Other examples (demonstrates pattern of conduct; lack of receptiveness to feedback; and so on)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs.
• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pedant17 for similar issues that occurred between 2006 and 2008.

This behavior is unacceptable; it degrades the quality of articles and the editing environment - and burns out constructive contributors. Now...before we put our hands up in the air and run to ArbCom, this community needs to try to effectively deal with this type of problem. The most obvious solution is a ban proposal, but it seems giving a set of last-chance remedies may be more effective. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pedant17

I would like to thank User:Ncmvocalist for bringing this matter before this august body of Administrators. I trust that fair-minded evaluation of the facts and circumstances will allow us to continue to improve the article in question: List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, which has remained basically moribund for too long while I have attempted to discuss and make improvements and expansions..

I agree that we appear to have a case here of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It concerns me that I have done too much listening and heard little but repetitious abuse. I have repeatedly appealed on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents for my fellow-editors to provide some reason or justification for the disruptive wholesale reversions of my much-discussed proposals for improvement - hence my raising of the issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (2010-05-11) in the first place.

The talk-page Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents currently contains, I believe, adequate justification for my editing and for its patterns in this article. In particular it includes:

• Unrefuted discussion (dated 2010-01-29) of an alleged consensus against my edits - with an appeal for further discussion.

• A response (dated 2010-04-29) to generic charges of "disruption" by contrasting the process of improving and expanding and correcting articles - with an appeal (unanswered) for explanation.

• An appeal (dated 2009-12-09, and still awaiting a satisfactory response) for an explanation of alleged "non-constructive" edits.

Such discussion as has taken place may well appear "brief" in that it has taken place one-sidedly. I have consistently called for discussion of details and sought explanations and reasons for the reversions of my edits - only to receive general accusations of generic crimes, seldom exemplified and never proven in any follow-through.

The tendentious accusation that I have "threatened" to revert masks a clear statement of intent to revert - conditionally - in the absence of explanation and justification. (dated 2010-04-25).

The accusation that I have acted "on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support" amounts to an unjustified interpretation. I have never claimed "support", but simply bolstered my arguments with logic and reason with a view to defining and re-refining consensus.

I observe that the only specific charge of "disruptive editing" made against me in the opening of this ANI discussion relates to an alleged case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as discussed above). The vague "all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing" smears my behavior unjustifiably. If anyone has specific evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

Note that the quoted examples of ANI discussions and requests for comment on my alleged behavior have not resulted in any penalty, adverse consensus, or indeed any outstanding case to answer.

I quite agree that we should regard behavior involving disruption and lack of consensus-building as unacceptable. However, an examination of Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents reveals me as the victim rather than the perpetrator of these crimes - my proposals repeatedly rejected, by attempts at discussion repeatedly ignored.

I can see the danger of degrading the quality of articles and burning out constructive contributors. Thus I regard it as all the more important to defend good and constructive editing such as I have attempted to carry out. I welcome reasoned and reasonable criticism of my edits, but have a limited tolerance of unreasoned stonewalling and refusal to build consensus by discussion of specifics.

Apart from any issues of behavior or procedure, lets look at the substance of the editing which other Wikipedians have labeled disruptive, quality-degrading and unacceptable original research. Take my latest offering in editing List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents:

• I attempted to bring a little more precision to the opening discussion on the use of pejorative terms, toning down the lack of NPOV and providing examples of non-English terminology (as used in the article body). In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted two "Request quotation" tags in an effort to get precise wording for citation. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted citations for further examples of government document listings, as already discussed in the article body. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted further cited examples of government document listings, as mentioned in an already-cited source. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted an extra (sourced) sentence in the section on Australia with a view to mentioning a classic and well-known 1965 case of a government document addressing a "cult" issue. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-inserted a previously deleted reference (albeit tagged with "Failed verification") to match the orphaned heading relating to the Austrian government's 1996 document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a sourced reference to the Austrian government's 1999 document, which also serves as a verifiable reference to the existence of the previous (1996) document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a heading for the otherwise orphaned text relating to the International Religious Freedom Report 2006. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I corrected a French spelling of Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-corrected the use of an imbalanced "{" to match a "]". In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I reduced POV in the characterization of Raffarin's circulaire by closely paraphrasing from the already-cited original. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I linked "Berlin" to Berlin. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I provided an extra translation of a German-language title. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-formatted the "References" section to one column with a view to making it more readable, better formatted, and sequentially scrollable. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

In summary: show where I've gone wrong. If you can convince me - no problem. Otherwise, lets talk about the issues, based on the facts.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific sanction proposals

I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption.

Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation:

1) Should Pedant17 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. The sanction will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction. Sanctions are at the discretion of the administrator, and may include page bans, topic bans, blocks, or any other restriction.

2) Pedant17 is strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations). This restriction may be enforced through blocks, and he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages, once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction.

3) Pedant17 is limited to editing with a single account.

NOTE: Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #3 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all 3 as proposer. As an uninvolved user who is deeply concerned by the implications of this tendentious conduct continuing, I cannot think of any other way to resolve this issue, short of escalating or an outright ban. I have also looked at his response and there is no sign of change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can prove "tendentious editing" (as opposed to principled contributing based on reasoned debate), then you might have a point. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All He was never blocked at all. I thought the proposal of a sanction was caused by getting in trouble into the same area of editing. Clearly, he was never blocked for any reason, as you can see in the block log, and I haven't seen any evidence of sockpuppetry either. Minimac (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You thought incorrectly then; the community response to this problem has been inadequate. That the disruptive editing is occurring in multiple areas suggests that this is a chronic problem that cannot be prevented by a mere community topic ban or timed-block. If this route isn't going to achieve sufficient support, the alternative and more nuclear route will be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, no blocks have taken place. I agree that the community has responded inadequately to the problem of pseudo-consensus. But the way to resolve this lies not in suppressing further input, but in endorsing Wikipedia Policies such as "consensus can change". -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question re: sanction 3. Has Pedant17 used alternative accounts, or is this merely anticipatory? TFOWR^{Unchanged since 1894} 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anticipatory; in light of the amount of socking many admins seem to encounter after problem editing is restricted on the first account. But I don't mind if the third is left out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. No strong views about sanction 3, I just felt that if Pedant17 had used alt accounts it should be taken into account. TFOWR^{Sale now on! Every sig must go!} 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1,2 (no strong view on 3). This edit in October 2009 looks very similar to this edit in June 2010. The latter edit refers to a talk page discussion, which indicates several editors' concerns about Pedant17's WP:OR. In view of Pedant17's inability to take on board the concerns of other editors I regard sanctions as a desirable alternative to further escalation. TFOWR^{sigs are hazardous to the health} 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits will look similar because no meaningful opposition to them has emerged - merely obstructionism. -- I count a grand total of two (2) editors (rather than "several") who attempted to raise a claim of WP:OR against me. I disproved that claim in a subsequent post to the talk-page. 29 Jan Do we have an outstanding claim of WP:OR ? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1, 2, 3. I agree with TFOWR, the behavior exhibited by Pedant17 (talk · contribs), especially the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues, is disruptive and harmful to the project. This is a sensible and logical proposal by Ncmvocalist. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something of a turnaround from a colleague who once attempted to persuade me to edit more and discuss less... Please demonstrate sensible and logical objections to the edits in question at List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, and we can discuss them. In the meantime we might suspect that the suppression of bold editing disrupts and harms the Wikipedia project. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all three. This has been going on for too long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long is too long to wait for fellow-editors to justify their opinions? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2, this editor shows a tendency not to listen to other Wikipedians; I think the most appropriate remedy is #2. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not listening to one's fellow-Wikipedians constitutes a grievous crime - one that we should condemn. I regret that an editor who has so promptly and thoroughly reverted my edits at List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents should have reached the point where I felt the need to bring the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavioral guideline to his attention. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. On the face of it, would the proposed sanction 2 make it impossible for the sanctioned Wikipedian to add any new articles to Wikipedia - in the absence of a pre-existing talk-page for a non-existent article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is possible for you to create an article, provided the first edit or so is purely to satisfy minimum requirements (eg; notability). The key thing to remember is that if you seem to be toeing the line of your probation in the view of an admin, you will be sanctioned accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That interpretation ("first edit or so") would appear to conflict with the wording of "strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations)." Do we have precedents for this sort of scenario?-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't operate on precedents. As the sole drafter of this probation, I've provided you with the most lenient interpretation that administrators might take in such a scenario - the more intelligent thing to do, as I hinted, would be to ensure you don't violate (or be seen to attempt to violate) your probation in any form whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 and 2. Much of my experience with this editor has involved him rejecting a clear and unanimous consensus, usually with an odd interpretation of WP:SILENCE or WP:CCC. It seems that he either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the process of consensus; requiring cooperation with other editors in order to apply edits seems like a useful direction to take this. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hmm. I wonder whether we can possibly regard the alleged consensus wielded on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents as "clear and unanimous? - On 2009-09-03 a former Wikipedian (now no longer active on Wikipedia) wrote "Agree that the edit was not constructive [...]" with reference to a perceived problem with adding "empty spaces to templates". (I didn't fully understand what that meant, but subsequently found a piece of advice somewhere that has encouraged me to prune empty and non-key parameters in templates ever since.) No more "clear and unanimous" agreement. Yet one quibble about template-usage has stood for the following 9 months or so as some sort of reason for reverting every one of my edits to the List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents article -- all in the name of a consensus. On that "consensus" we have seen hung "edits that are inappropriate and reduce quality of the article" (2009-12-13) and "multiple different non-consensus changes" (2010-04-25), "there is not consensus for your disruptive changes" (2010-04-30) and "making non-constructive disruptive changes to the page without consensus". A flimsy enough basis, you will agree, for such spirited language. Yet I (perhaps foolishly) took the magic word "consensus" seriously and addressed the matter. On 2010-01-29 I wrote: " If we do regard such casual agreement as "consensus", I hereby dispute that "consensus". I note that that pseudo-consensus made no reference to "inappropriate[ness]" or to "reduc[ing]" the "quality of the article" (whatever "quality of the article" means...) It seems to me that the goal-posts keep shifting. -- If I have made some obvious blunder(s) that merit{s) the wholesale reversion of my edit then let's hear about it in plain language." I continue to await a reply to my points. Perhaps you can help to show us all where the consensus clearly and unanimously established something relevant to our current discussion. -- Let me add a word on my alleged "odd interpretation" of WP:SILENCE (as a supplement of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CCC. I have indeed quoted these elsewhere: I'll let the Wikipedia policy on WP:CONSENSUS speak for itself: "Consensus can change[.] Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." And: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." And particularly: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". Here, as elsewhere, I regard this policy as relevant, applicable, and supportive of my editing. Can you prove otherwise? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 isn't necessary and isn't really helping; Pedant17 has shown a willingness to ignore conventions or consensus that he doesn't agree with, but that hasn't yet extended to socking and we shouldn't assume it will. 2 does not necessarily help as Pedant17 does not have a problem with "discussing" his edits, only paying attention to the replies. So only 1 needs to be enacted to prevent further time being wasted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can "ignore conventions or consensus" - and the system will clobber them. On the other hand, I sometimes question and dispute conventions and consensuses, paying too much "attention to the replies".. I suspect that makes enemies of editors unable or unwilling to defend their chosen ground on the basis of facts and policies. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all three, although I think only #1 will really be necessary. I don't think this user's motives are bad, having dealt with this over the course of a number of years, so I doubt there will be sockpuppetry problems; rather, I suspect that the user truly does not comprehend the line between tendentious and acceptable editing. I will also say that #2 probably won't be of much help, since Pendant17 is perfectly willing to write volumes on talk pages and does not act in bad faith in failing to see that the community consensus is squarely against him. But the edits are disruptive and so an administrator may have to step in and apply temporary sanctions just to keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[1] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. But I still would be happy to see it. (and it's actually more probable than me winning the lottery, which I would also be happy to see!) ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return [2]. If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for an extension to indef at this time. Let the block go to completion and see where things stand then. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Lar said. Keep paying out the WP:ROPE for a while, the result might even be reform. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest fear that I (or any editor has) have is that he will come back, make socks, harass, and waste time of all editors involved. Maybe an indef block is not the best option now, if anything continues, I would not oppose. Old Al (Talk) 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty upset at how fast Mk went from zero to nasty with me over a minor capitalization issue, but that said, a person actually CAN have a bad couple of months, things like losing a job, or death of a loved one, sickness, or lots of other chronic things can get someone off kilter and they may not want to discuss a personal matter publicly on wiki, yet the emotionality comes through nonetheless. So maybe we should give him one more chance. I'm in favor of seeing if he will accept a mentor or something like that. However, that does need to come with a clear understanding that threats of disruption and such are not acceptable, and neither is use of personal attacks and insults. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block is due to expire Tuesday, I believe, so I guess we'll see what happens. My projection based on past experience with this user is that MK will probably immediately file an ANI report again me, Lars, and anyone else who participated in this block. While MK might very well calm down and be civil, the underlying issue is that MK truly believes he is doing nothing wrong. And I also agree this is probably tied into real world events and/or who MK is in the real world. MK has advertised that he is British but also has stated openly he lives in the United States. I believe we may be dealing with an exchange student, or perhaps someone who is young. That is of course rampant speculation on my part and I do not wish to pry into MK's real world identity - just an observation. -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose an indef block (I get the feeling that "permanent" is meant by indef). Let's not jump the gun here. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal behaviour for Mk, unfortunately. He can be reasonable but he can also be completely unreasonable and that has caused significant trouble. He really needs to understand that it's time to stop the aggression. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Guy. I've worked with him before, he's a bright editor but just a bit stubbon sometimes if things don't go his way. I think maybe just point him towards some helpful Wikipedia guidelines but I think an indef block is a bit extreme unless he actually makes good on his threat to evade and starts to cause trouble. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think filing an RfC is an unnecessary step: this editor initiated a dispute over an amazingly trivial matter (which ought to be added to WP:LAME), & as a result was banned several times. It would be difficult not to conclude he has been sufficiently warned about his inappropriate behavior. And I agree with Chris Cunningham's comment above -- trying to explain his behavior as "a bad week" is needlessly bending over backwards to accommodate the guy. If everyone wants to wait to see how Mk behaves once his block expires, that's fine by me; handling problems like this works best when the least amount of effort is needed. Maybe he's had an epiphany & will start being far less adversarial after this last block. (I actually am always hopeful about that these kinds of changes could happen.) But if he immediately returns to his old ways, then the only thing left to debate is whether an indefinite block or a community ban is the appropriate solution for this individual. -- llywrch (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might benefit this situation if an administrator posts a message on MKs talk page before tomorrow (when the block expires) cautioning MK to avoid posting on ANI, attacking those who blocked him, and asking for punishments against other users with which he has had disagreements. If MK does in fact engage in that behavior, and shows up tomorrow looking for vengeance, then I would say that would be grounds for an immediate re-block on the grounds of disruptive editing. At this point, MK is well aware that his own behavior has caused most of his troubles on Wikipedia - he has been counseled, cautioned, and warned at one time or another by no less than seven administrators (at least by my count). The best thing for MK to do now would be to go back to peaceful editing. -OberRanks (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm the best person to do that, but if no one else has posted that friendly advice OberRanks suggests on MK's page in the next few hours, I will do just that. The idea is to nudge worthwhile editors towards civil/professional behavior on Wikipedia -- which will only help good-faith editors in their off-Wiki activities -- not to get rid of volunteers just because they are incivil without knowing better. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is about but the ip address traces to an area close to where MK has edited from before. Might be a random vandal or a VPN operating out of a common server, who knows. MK is due to be unblocked in a few hours- if everything remains civil and calm there might not be much more to discuss. I plan to stay out of this editor's way unless it is absolutely necessary, such as responding to an ANI or filing the RFC that I have prepared. My mere appearance seems to really fire up MK, tied no doubt to the previous sockpuppet debate. MK and I don't appear to have much common interest in the same articles, though, so there should be no danger there. -OberRanks (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I reopened it and issues have been resolved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for deletion first on the the 29th of May. The discussion was closed reasonably by a non-admin as keep, with "no prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". After a day, no sources had been provided by any other editors, so I looked for myself using English/Danish google, and found no citable significant coverage. I therefore renominated the article for deletion. After a few indignant Keep !votes, Ktr101 closed the debate with the following rational "this page won't be deleted so please accept it. "Just because sources aren't there doesn't mean it isn't notable," seems to be the effective argument here." I feel that this closure was extremely premature just under six and a half hours after the discussion was opened, and the user concerned, while an experienced contributor, may not be impartial and is not an administrator, so should not close potentially controversial AFD discussions. The closure was also unjustified due to the comment made by the user closing the debate previously and, in my opinion, the weakness of the arguments behind the keep !votes, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources around. Therefore, per WP:NPASR, the debate should be relisted. I've notified Ktr101. Claritas § 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - BarkingFish has accused me of "taking the piss" over this issue. Claritas § 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I did no such thing, claritas. Don't make a drama out of a crisis :) I compared the speedy renom comment with a 23h wait to do it. That's what I considered taking the piss, I accused you of nothing, personally BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I requested the AFD to be shut, since there's "quick renomination", and there's taking the piss. A renom within 23 hours of closure of the original one I'd say is the latter. Just to say, that just because you can't find any reliable sources, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be able to. Sources don't just exist on the net, they're in printed material, books, etc... I'm sure that with some patience and some work, it can be verified to the point of being able to keep it. For now, let's see what we can do with it. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am impartial here and would've never even stumbled upon it if it wasn't brought to my attention. Basically I can see where you are coming from here. The problem is, you renominated it the day after it was closed. I have never seen an AFD renomination occur so quickly before and you should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress so people don't normally fix articles in 24 hours. I agree that my closure rationale was a bit wrong but I also was basing it on the fact that the original ran for two weeks until it was closed. Clearly if more people wanted it deleted, they would've voted but usually when people see a sleu of keep votes, they don't bother because it would really be just restating the obvious. Also, you should seek help at the Danish Wikipedia as I'm assuming a few of them speak English and they might be able to help you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a source - IMDB. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a reliable source which can be used to substantiate claims of notability, however. It simply verifies that the series exists. Claritas § 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't reliable, then why is it on thousands of articles and used as a primary source for many of them? Surely an unreliable source would be blacklisted by now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, nor can it be used to indicate notability, as it strives to list all productions regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, for the same reason that Wikia and other non-reliable wikis haven't been blacklisted: they aren't reliable sources because it is still user-driven information, but it may still have value as an external link. IMDB definitely falls within this category...there is little to no editorial oversight, probably just enough to ensure blatantly false info isn't added, though I've certainly found a tremendous amount of inaccurate data over my years of using that site. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I guess I have been inept about the site all this time. Sorry for the accusations there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That really is a quick renomination. It would've been better to wait a couple of weeks, at least. That gives others a fair amount of time to make the improvements, and it also makes your argument a lot stronger if they don't. Win-win. If you really think it needed to be reconsidered sooner, WP:DRV would seem more appropriate. Shimeru 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPASR, "the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so." I think my actions were appropriate per all policy I've read. Claritas § 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying it was inappropriate. Just that it might've been better to wait a little longer first. You seem to be well within your rights. Shimeru 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This close seems completely inappropriate to me: a "speedy keep" only applies if the nomination was purely disruptive or if the nominator withdraws and no delete votes have been registered: neither is the case here.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should it just have been a keep even though it was open less than 12 hours? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You shouldn't have closed it at all. Your closing of the AFD was simply the wrong thing to do.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been speedied, they should have asked the nom to withdraw and wait a week or two. The close was inappropriate. It would have been better if the nominator waited a bit longer, but I see no reason to abandon WP:AGF based on a simple reading of the previous close. Verbal chat 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, "this page won't be deleted so please accept it" is unacceptable in a closing statement, especially when the article is highly likely to be deleted unless significantly improved. Verbal chat 20:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone everything. I only wrote the rationale because I really couldn't think of anything at the time as I viewed it as a bit too soon. I was wrong and I am sorry for causing this drama. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I asked for it to be shut, since I feel that the original closer quoting WP:NPASR was wrong - the policy is misleading, since it states it can be used on "No consensus" closes, nothing else. I don't feel the closing editor was right to use it. The original one was open for a fortnight, obtained no delete votes, and I simply considered that the immediate renom within less than a day after closure was too rapid. I support the closure entirely, since it would help if the nominator gave people more time to find sources, than assuming they were the only one who could find them. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was one delete vote in the original one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed it :) Well even then, there was enough keeps for it to be shut as a keep after 2 weeks... Either way, NPASR shouldn't have been quoted in the close. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that it shouldn't have been reopened so soon as well. It was a good-faith nomination, so it remains up to the nominator to withdraw it, though.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first AfD, it should have either been relisted or closed as a delete. There wasn't a single valid keep rationale presented. Verbal chat 20:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have significant doubts that this is a good faith renomination, given the nominator's practice of creating utterly unsourced articles -- eg, Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla -- him- or herself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am the "non-admin snout counter" who closed the first AFD and I would like to apologize for indirectly starting this drama. The first AFD was what is sometimes called at DRV a "defective debate". Almost all the !votes were "keep" but they all were pretty weak. However, the last 2 keep !votes made a valid point about the possibility of significant coverage in Danish so I closed it keep in order to give some additional time to find and evaluate these potential sources. By "quick renomination" I didn't mean the very next day. I meant "weeks" instead of "months" as is the usual custom with "keep" closes. Since it wasn't a BLP I thought this was reasonable and still within the spirit of WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. I also do a lot of WP:NPASR closes where I say "speedy renominate" so I should have elaborated further and not just said "quick". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have closed the first one as keep. If an article is on the chopping block and no one can provide the sources, as far as we are concerned at that point in time they don't exist. While we normally don't have a deadline, I would consider an AfD a deadline and if someone can't provide sources in 7 days to establish notability, it probably doesn't exist.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the AFD were on a "high risk" article such as a BLP or a completely unverifiable subject (WP:HOAX, WP:BALLS, or WP:MADEUP). The subject in question is a Danish TV show from the 80s which is a "low risk" article. If an admin closed that AFD as "delete", it would be overturned at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support it. Local consensus on an AfD can't override an existing larger consensus, like notability, or the requirement for sources. If backs to the wall, interested editors can't find appropriate sources, it shouldn't be kept, because in the absence of sources, any keep vote is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. I'd happily go to bat for any admin who has the gumption to actually start treat AfDs an articles like the community has long actually agreed they should be treated and not how a few interested editors try to game the system.--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On June 10, editor was blocked for a period of 2 weeks by User:2over0 for "edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith".
• On June 11, 2over0 unblocked - based on an unblock request, specifically "Unblocked to allow participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence and associated pages only until expiry. It looks like your participation is vital to that case, and it would be unfair to prevent you from presenting your evidence. I have unblocked you for this purpose. I will make a note of this over there". This is therefore a de facto topic ban / editing restriction from everything else but that Arb case
• On Jun 13, Captain Occam requested an unblock - as he was not blocked, I declined and pointed him here, to WP:ANI - the same place he has been advised multiple times to come.
• On Captain Occam's behalf, I am requesting a review of the restrictions in place, with what I see as 3 possible solutions:

Option 1 - Complete Unblock

• Support until and unless specific evidence is brought forth to substantiate caims which seems to be lacking he4e. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Precisely because of this ArbCom case, it is now better to let him edit all of Wikipedia and only block him in case of very disruptive editing. Any mildly bad behavior which would normally prompt some form of intervention (warning on his talk page and then a block if this behavior persists) can now best be tolerated as how he behaves when not constrained is also relevant evidence in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I see that the "free pass" bit can be bit problematic, but at least let him freely all of Wikipedia during the ArbCom case. If I were an Arbitrator, I would want to see how this editor behaves in general on Wikipedia, what his interests are outside of this particular topic. E.g. it can make a lot of difference if you show the same signs of problematic behavior on all science related articles on controversial topics or only on the intelligence/race related topics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the same reason as Hell in a Bucket. Admin 2/0 has failed to provide any diffs illustrating edits by Occam that he finds objectionable despite the fact that several uninvolved editors have asked that he do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Based on the below, the user seems to have been obeying the terms of the unblock, seems like there is no problem. Looking at the user's edits prior to the block, he had not edited the article for 48 hours before the block. I see no justification for a preventative block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My assessment of this issue would be the same regardless of my opinion about the editor. An admin should not be able to block someone and refuse to provide specific examples and diffs of the user's behavior that led to the block, especially after being asked multiple times by a variety of people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you involved in a romantic relationship with CO? Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really none of your business. You already asked me if I know him outside Wikipedia on my userpage, I answered honestly; anything involving personal details about how we know each other is irrelevant. It's not something that has ever been stated by us on Wikipedia or any page we've linked to, so I hope you're not trying to engage in WP:Outing here.

If you think I'm voting this way because of my personal feelings toward Occam, rather than that the block itself is unreasonable, then you need to realize this is exactly how the votes from several other editors in favor of keeping the block look to me. A lot of these people have been involved in content disputes against Occam, and as far as I can tell this is why they approve of him being blocked, even in the absence of diffs and specific evidence from the blocking admin. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information and links to the fact that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was the girlfriend of Captain Occam have been posted by Captain Occam multiple times on wikipedia, and is still in the archives: [3]. If you don't want this information on wikipedia you might consider contacting WP:OS to have that page (and this one, and any others where it has come up) scrubbed. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained so many times already, I’m not sure what the point is in explaining it again. But I’ll do so anyway:

The only information that I’ve ever provided about my girlfriend’s identity is that my userpage used to contain a link to a DeviantArt community that I said was “my and my girflfriend’s”. The community has over 100 members, and there’s nothing on the page that I linked to which specifically identifies my girlfriend as having this Wikipedia account. However, by searching through this community as well as well as the personal DeviantArt accounts that Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to, Mathsci has claimed to uncover evidence that this user is my girlfriend.

If you think I’ve ever stated this myself, post the diff. All you’ve done is link to an entire 380 KB AN/I thread, and said the equivalent of “it’s somewhere in there”. I’m quite certain that the only people who’ve ever claimed this are Mathsci, and the various people who repeated this after Mathsci said it, which doesn’t give you permission to keep repeating the same thing yourself.

And incidentally, I have contacted oversight about this, and in response they’ve told me that it’s not possible for them to remove anything from AN/I threads. The fact that Wikipedia’s rule against outing can’t be properly enforced here doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. Whether or not the wiki editor of the same name is impersonating your girlfriend is a separate issue. I've suggested this before, but if this is stuff you're not interested in having on wikipedia, it's probably best for you (and Ferahgo) to just ignore requests to verify your relationship status. If there are issues with scrubbing this from wikipedia, that's even more reason to ignore any such requests. aprock (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend.”

And you’re just going to keep claiming this while refusing to address what I said in response to it? I just told you: if you think I’ve said this anywhere on-Wiki, post the diff. (That is, a diff from me, not from Hipocrite or Mathsci.) If you can’t, then as far as I (and probably anyone else who reads this thread) is concerned, you’re putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here - Captain Occam was open about his RL identity when he wrote his userpage initially. It took about ten seconds of not-even-googling to learn that Ferahgo the Assassin was his girlfriend, contrary to his constant protestations that it took some sort of gymnastics - however, to demonstrate this would be outing. Captain Occam used Ferahgo the Assassin as a meatpuppet before - and was not even a little open about it - see [4], [5], and multiple others. It is not outing to say that User:Captain Occam is dating User:Ferahgo the Assassin. It is outing if I were to say "Ferahgo the Assassin is Jane Doe" (She is not Jane Doe). It is a violation of WP:MEAT to recruit your real life girlfriend to campaign on wikipedia for you. Further, Ferahgo the Assassin recent wrote "I don't try to keep [my relationship with Captain Occam a secret and will answer honestly if asked"]. Where's the outing, exactly? If it outing if, to take a counterfactual, I was dating Beyond My Ken for someone to say "Hey, Hipocrite, aren't you dating Beyond My Ken? Isn't it meatpuppetry for him to recruit you to agree with him about topics you've never edited before?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Occam: As Hipocrite said, posting the details would certainly constitute outing. If you restore your User page to a state where the scrubbed information is again displayed on the page, I will be happy to explain where you made it clear that "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. aprock (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake. Can an admin please step in here and block these people who are trying to get an outing confirmed? The original question Ferahgo was inappropriate, both that editor and Occam have refused to confirm the allegation that's been made. Persisting on this topic is flagrant outing. Rvcx (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from WP:OUTING whether relationship status constitutes personal information: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. I don't think anyone has ever published that sort of personal information, only that the two are/were in a romantic relationship. However, that is a personal issue, and in general it's not something I'm really interested in. In this case, my only interest is in correcting the claims by Captain Occam and Ferahgo that this information was not provided on wikipedia. Had they ignored it, or not responded with misrepresentations, there would be little to discuss. At the admin level, this is somewhat of a complex issue. It's not clear how this relates to WP:MEAT, or WP:OUTING, especially since this information was provided by Captain Occam through his user page and discussions elsewhere on wikipedia. Updating the policy pages to directly address this sort of personal information would help here. aprock (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that pointing out two users' admission that they have a relationship does not constitute outing; hence no action from me. However, anyone posting speculation as to real-world identities or identifying information here will certainly and clearly fall foul of our policy - and shortly thereafter of some admin's tools. Perhaps not mine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SheffieldSteel, I don’t think you’re understanding the point here. This information has not been provided by me or Ferahgo the Assassin at Wikipedia, nor has it been provided at any page that either of us has linked to. I’ve asked Aprock and Hipocrite several times to support their claim that either of us said this by providing a diff, and both of them have declined to do so while giving a nonsensical reason why not. (If they think it would be outing for them to point to what I’ve said on-Wiki that they think proves this user is my girlfriend, how can it not be outing for them to keep repeating the personal conclusion they’ve drawn about me from this?) The link that Hipocrite posted that he claims supports his assertion about us is only Ferahgo the Assassin admitting she knows me outside Wikipedia; it says nothing about the personal details of how we know each other.

I’m quite certain that the reason neither of them can provide a diff in which either of us have said this is because no such diff exists. Is their unsupported claim that I’ve stated this on-Wiki is sufficient for admins to overlook their attempts to confirm non-public personal information about us? And if so, does this policy apply in other situations where someone claims this? If the only thing that’s necessary to get away with posting non-public personal information about another user is to claim that the user has divulged it themselves, and then refuse to provide a diff of where the user said this, it will be possible to get away with absolutely any instance of outing by making this claim and then refusing to support it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs from your User page were scrubbed because you were concerned about outing issues. There are diffs elsewhere, but since they would out you, providing them seems contrary to your desires. If you restore the scrubbed version of your User page, I'll provide the diffs. Alternatively, if you definitively state that you would like me to out you, I'll provide the diffs. aprock (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you’re still not being consistent here. If you agree that it would be outing for you to link to diffs in which other users were talking about the content that was removed from my userpage, why is it not outing for you to talk about the personal conclusions about me that you’ve drawn from this content?

You don’t have to answer this. I expect that an admin will probably be closing this thread soon, so hopefully when they do, they’ll also make a decision about whether what you and Hipocrite have been doing here is acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referred explicitly to the WP:OUTING guidelines, asked for guidance and got guidance. If you want me to provide diffs, which would expose personal information as described in WP:OUTING, I will only do it with explicit permission from you. Alternatively, you could drop the whole thing, as I've suggested several times now. aprock (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There was no reason given for a block in the first place. The argument to continue it is that people didn't like the manner of the complaint about this? Stop the madness. The only thing being achieved here is the exposure of some serious favoritism, which warrants investigation. mikemikev (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "almost entirely" you mean David.Kane and mikemikev, right? Because only 2 of the 7 "support" votes here so far are involved in the ArbCom case. In what universe is 2 out of 7 a majority?

Even if what you're saying was correct, how is it any different from the votes against the unblock? Muntuwandi and Arthur Rubin are both opposing Occam in the ArbCom case, and you’ve brought up your content disputes with him in several past AN/I threads even though you’re not involved in the arbitration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean pretty much everyone in this section except Count Iblis. I didn't say they were involved in the ArbCom case, I said they supported Captain Occam's position in the ArbCom case, a claim that is easily evidenced by their editing and commentary throughout the many noticeboards and talk page discussions on Race & Intelligence. The closing admin should be aware that these !votes are here for reasons other than neutral evaluation of the circumstances, but instead are probably motivated by personal connections and ideologically-based sympathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know who B and Hell in a Bucket are. The past day is the first time I’ve ever interacted with them. I also had never interacted with Vecrumba before around a week ago, and I have no idea what his viewpoint is about this topic; he’s stated a few times that he has no idea what mine is either.

This is a rather lame attempt to try and disrupt the consensus which seems to be forming, coming from one of the group of people who appear (based on their comments in past AN/I threads and on the R & I talk page) to have long-term grievances against me, which make up more than half of the votes in favgr of keeping thm ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, block !voting -- the core subject of the ArbCom case under consideration -- is akin to meatpuppetry, and does not legitimately establish a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks."? It's quite simple, an editor was blocked with a pile of accusations and not a single diff. I don't even know if I support Occam's editorial position or not at the article, but let's pile on the bad faith crap. Oh, and "anyone who disagrees with someone else who disagrees with me/someone I'm against is a meatpuppet." Really, this "note to closing admin" is not helpful whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support complete unblock, unless or until there is some explanation for the original block. This block seems to go against the basic notion that blocks are practical and not punitive. Further, it really looks like this was an admin making a statement about the parties to the ArbCom case (which concerns, among other things, whether "editors in good standing" deserve special treatment); there is at least as much cause for blocking User:Mathsci. Whether the appearance of favoritism is accurate or not, the block severely undermines faith in admin neutrality. Rvcx (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator has so far shared your views, even though you have posted them now in many forums. I believe I'm in good standing with 8,200 content edits and about 40 articles created. Because I've participated in various ArbCom cases, I'm also known to various members of ArbCom. Most administrators can distinguish between an WP:SPA and an editor who adds quite a lot of content in a wide range of areas. As far as WP:CPUSH is concerned, here is a classic case. What you have written above verges on a personal attack and I would ask you please to refactor your comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim any special privilege. You on the other hand have just tag-team edited with two WP:SPA editors that have recently been blocked. I wonder whether your advanced skills with the preview button would help you write The Four Seasons (Poussin), Handel concerti grossi Op.6, Differential geometry of surfaces or Europe#History. You seem to have a lot of advice to offer, but very few content edits. Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support complete unblock unless the original block has any evidence to it. Blocks are not punitive, but preventive, so if the blocks don't prevent anything, the block is not valid. The restrictions put in place seem pretty harsh—only edit the ArbCom pages? Until he disrupts Wikipedia or evidence for the original block is provided, a completely unblock should be put in place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support complete unblock until admin who issued the block deigns to give his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only two three !votes in this section from non-aligned editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (miscounted) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Ken There is nothing wrong with their opinions and to exempt them solely because they agree with Occam at ARBCOMis beyond ridiculous. You don't have to have completely unbiased people to make a consensus, unless there is a policy saying those who agree with you are exempted from doing it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. !Voting in a block distorts any actual community consensus that may be forming, by misrepresenting the balance of the discussion. Admins are not supposed to count noses in determining consensus, they're supposed to take into account numerous factors, such as the quality of the arguments, and among the many things they should consider is block voting, such as has occured here. An uninvolved admin may not be aware of the en bloc behavior of the hereditarian faction involved in the Race & Intelligence dispute, so I think it is helpful to point it out. Absent the !votes of that block, there is no clear consensus in this discussion at all, which will, presumably, leave the status quo in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll have no problems pointing this out with a official policy disqualifying them from arguing on this persons behalf? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Beyond My Ken, is it the case that a "block" one disapproves of evil and a block one agrees with is consensus? It's a small step from conspiracy theory to witch hunt. Let's not go there. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell: I never said or implied that they were disqualified from arguing on behalf of Captain Occam, what I said was that the closing admin should take into account that they are part of a !voting block and act accordingly. That is why I slugged my comments for the attention of the closing admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Vecrumba: The evidence of block behavior on the part of the heredetarian faction is very strong, and has been presented by numerous editors here and at the ArbCom case. No similar array of evidence has been presented for other block behavior, but if it exists, I expect that someone will present it to ArbCom. There's no witch hunt here, no wild conspiracy theory - anyone who's followed this issue over the last few months can see the clear behavioral evidence of block behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there isn't a problem with not shouting from every section you didn't agree with that those people are involved, if what you say is correct the admin will be able to sort this out without you throwing the seeds of dissension and decide on the arguments merits without the color commentary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - Reblock for remainder of original block

• Support. (1) It prevents further spilling out onto pages covered by the topic ban, and (2) It gives Captain Occam what they want - an opportunity to request an unblock, and contest the original block. TFOWR 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Part struck, re-signing. TFOWR 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Except that it should get reset to a new two weeks. When you evade a block, it starts over. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) User had permission for edit, does not seem to have violated terms of block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This not the first time Captain Occam has edit warred over race and intelligence articles. He has been doing so since October 2009. This 3RR noticeboard archive report shows Captain Occam made 10 reverts to the race and intelligence article within 24 hours and continued edit warring 3 days after his block expired (diff to report). Occam is fully knowledgeable about edit warring and the consequences but was edit warring on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ according to the article'srevision history. Furthermore the administrator Georgewilliamherbert placed race and intelligence articles on a 1RR [[6]], which Captain Occam was fully aware of, even citing it in this diff .[7]. I see no reasonable excuse for edit warring. Unblocking him would set a very bad precedent and would be a punch in the gut to those editors who while being bold, have avoided edit warring. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The complexities of this situation are entirely the result of the attempt by the blocking admin to show latitutde to Captain Occam so that he could participate in the ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. Instead, Captain Occam chose to post on Jimbo's talk page, in contravention of his unblock conditions, and has refused multiple suggestions that he take his appeal here. In addition, only in the last day has he taken advantage of the purpose of his unblock and posted to the ArbCom case. The easiest way to reduce the uncertainties of this situation is to restore the physical block and have Captain Occam's participation in the ArbCom case continue by proxy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In reading this over, I realized that my comment may be taken as criticism of the blocking admin, but that was not my intention. I think 2over0's actions were an admirable attempt to be very fair to Captain Occam. It's not his fault that CO has taken advantage of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Participating in an arbcom case that isn't about you isn't a right. He should never have been unblocked to participate in it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - Remain unblocked, with original editing restrictions intact for the duration of the original block

• Support 3 Although the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has continued on Jimbo's talk page, requiring Bwilkins to bring this here against Occam's wishes, I support the restriction until the expiration of the original block. Would change to 2 if problems persist, and editor could post AC comments on his own talk (as has been done before). CO has been extended a lot of good faith here. Verbal chat 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per verbal. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirm community ban for remaining duration of original block length (pending explanation of original block - I might disagree at that point).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Verbal; I agree that allowing him to appeal to the God-King is a extension of the original relaxation of the block. I don't yet agree with option 2, but I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just reading this made me dizzy. You keep asking the same thing over and over and kept getting the same types of responses but you would reject what information you were receiving. I don't think that there is any single dif to show the behavior. I think it's the overall way you react to things. You really WP:IDHT. I think the block should stay and if this behavior of ignoring what other's say is repeated then I would say to make the block again without assuming good faith that you will stop the disruptive behavior. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although I am recused from this particular case, I can state that it is a common practice to unblock an editor with restriction to participate in an Arbcom case in which the editor has a notable interest; such appears to be the case here. Since his unblock is specific to his participation in the Arbcom case, his focus should be solely on providing evidence and commenting on the workshop page of the case. Risker (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CO Unblock Discussion

Discussion and !votes above would be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to discuss this here. And it’s not because I’m afraid of being blocked again; it’s because every recent thread here that’s involved me or the race and intelligence articles (which the subject of the ArbCom case for which I was unblocked) has turned into a mudslinging match about the content disputes over these articles. Several other (uninvolved) editors who’ve commented on the thread in Jimbo Wales’ user talk understand this also. If this thread is allowed to continue, it will likely turn into nothing but a colossal waste of everyone’s time, just like every other recent thread here on this topic.

Is it permissible for an admin to force me to appeal my block here when I specifically have a desire against that? If I’m being disallowed from continuing to discuss it in Jimbo Wales’ user talk, I can bring it up at the Arbitration Committee Clerks’ Noticeboard, per EdChem’s suggestion. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, another question: if this thread degenerates the way I’m predicting, am I going to be accused of forum shopping if I attempt to appeal my ban in the ArbCom case? If so, I want this thread closed right away. An administrator does have the right to essentially take away an editor’s right of appeal, by using it against the editor’s will in a channel that the editor has specifically stated that he does not want to pursue. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing here and Jimbo's talk page are is not permitted. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B, he was already denied on unblock based on the grounds that he wasn't blocked, and told that he would not be blocked for participating here. Catch up, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --B (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CO continues down this path, I'd change my support to option 2. As B says, he can then request an unblock. However, I would expect his refusal to participate here (not that his participation s required) would look bad to any admin. Verbal chat 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.

He gave that permission retroactively, after you had already violated the terms of your unblock by posting on Jimbo's page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people are going to be voting here without being familiar with the details of this situation, I recommend that everyone also read the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk. (2over0 is the admin who blocked me.) Since he did not provide any specific examples of what my block was based on, four different users have asked him to please explain in detail the justification for my block, but he’s failed to respond to any of them. As explained in ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there, a single admin also does not have permission to enact editing restrictions without any community discussion; to do so would be an example of discretionary sanctions, which is a failed proposal. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, editing Jimbo's talk page was a relaxation of your restrictions, showing exemplary good faith by 2/0 as you had already broken the restriction by posting there. Verbal chat 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal if this case was as clear cut as you claim, Occam would still be blocked and there would be a flood of diffs to prove this was a prudent course of action. I for one would like to see the diffs proving the allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said it was clear cut. He's been given a lot of leeway, and decided to continue his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself without proving anything. Can you please show us why these are needed? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the community isn’t able to come to a consensus either way (which is what I’m predicting will happen, and that’s another reason I suspected that discussing this here wouldn’t be productive) what will that means in terms of my editing restrictions? Since there was never any community consensus for these restrictions in the first place, it seems like this would just leave open the question of whether the restrictions are valid. (That is, whether 2over0 had the authority to implement discretionary sanctions on an article where Arbcom hasn’t authorized them, and whether it was acceptable for him to do so without providing any diffs of objectionable behavior from me, even when he was asked for them.) --Captain Occam (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional unblocks are extremely common - yours was a conditional unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will ultimately lose that appeal The only person other then 2/0 to remove it would probably have to be Arbcom if no consensus can be made here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to apologize to Captain Occam. I was looking at this strictly as a question of whether or not the editing restrictions were obeyed, rather than as to whether or not the underlying block was appropriate. He hadn't edited the article for two days before the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and once I looked at the actual edits, I don't see a reason for the block at all. The editing restrictions should be removed. --B (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was still online and editing other Wikipedia pages while people were asking him for an explanation of why he blocked me, though, as well as for a few hours afterwards. The fact that he went offline shortly after this doesn’t explain why he never responded to anyone’s questions about this in his user talk. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of BWilkins unblock decline

(out) Incidentally, I believe BWilkins' description of Captain Occam's circumstance as "a de facto topic ban" is quite wide of the mark. In fact, what Captain Occam is under is nothing more or less than a de facto block. If the software had the capability of blocking someone from everywhere but specific places, that option would have been used, and CO would only have been physically able to post on his talk page, at the ArbCom case, on Jimbo's page and here (Jimbo's at CO's request and AN/I as the proper place to appeal his block). That physical capability is not available, so 2/0 allowed a conditional unblock for those areas only. In point of fact, Captain Occam is virtually blocked from every place on Wikipedia except those 4 places, which is not at all like a topic ban, where one is allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia except the place where the ban is in place. The two situations are mirror opposites, not equivalents, so describing CO's situation in that way is entirely incorrect. For this reason, Fqb's suggestion that CO use an unblock request was perfectly apt, and BWilkin's declining to countenance it on procedural grounds was not only very un-Wiki-like, but incorrect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that public undressing, but "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." If CO was currently unable to edit due to technical means, then he would be blocked. He is technically able to edit. Period. If you want to discuss that in a better forum, let's do so - but don't detract from the point that someone finally tried to provide resolution to a situation. There was enough disruption and badgering taking place on Jimbo's page, that nobody else needed to continue it here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please be clear -- I think your decision to bring this here was a good one -- Captain Occam had "beat around the bush" (so to speak) for quite a while, and it's good that you forced the issue to a decision by bringing it here. But that doesn't change the fact that you should have dealt with his unblock request as an unblock request on his talk page, since he was (and is) de facto blocked. Your decision was a bad one, and (like all admin decisions) is subject to scrutiny from the editing community. Your apparent conviction that he was topic banned is demonstrably incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and you should have expected it to be second-guessed when you brought the whole megillah here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have my own actions reviewed, so I have made this into a separate sub-section, so that it does not detract from the issue at hand. I have clearly stated why I declined the unblock on the user's talkpage, Jimbo's page, and elsewhere. I stick by the decision that it was not an unblock request that was required to appeak a conditional unblock because he was not technically blocked as per WP:BLOCK - if anything, it was closer to WP:BAN as it was a socially-imposed condition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A few things need to be clarified here. A conditional unblock is the equivalent of a de facto restriction because it is a socially imposed condition rather than a technical means of preventing someone from editing. Conditional unblocks can be listed at WP:RESTRICT under "final warnings", though this is not a requirement like with formal community imposed editing restrictions. This is because a conditional unblock is not effected with a community consensus; therefore, an administrator may lift the condition because it does not require a community consensus to be lifted. However, should a reviewing administrator prefer to send the appeal to the community or have his/her action reviewed by the community for any reason, that administrator is entitled to do so. Theoretically, it could also be appealed to ArbCom or Jimbo, but practically, they would expect (or be expected to assert) that the community is to consider such an appeal first because they are a "last resort". In this case, 2/0 (the administrator who imposed the condition) requested that the restriction be considered by the community (at ANI) should the sanctioned user desire to appeal - should another administrator have refused to comply with this request and lifted the ban anyway, it would be predictable that 2/0 or someone else would have brought it here. In this particular instance, Bwilkins actions are therefore sound, and both Fqb and Beyond My Ken were/are off the mark. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. I'll also note (as BWilkins did) that Beyond my Ken did not attempt to address this issue with BWilkins at his talkpage before bringing it here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - he brought the issue here, I responded here. There's no need for back door discussions when the front door is open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the one who added the heading, as even though B my Ken felt it "incidental", there was a clear and strong questioning of my action, and I'm open to such critique (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the main point of my critique, it seems to me that refusing to deal with an unblock request because, in the admin's opinion, a conditional unblock is more like a ban than a block, is process for the sake of process. The block was imposed by a single admin, and was made conditional by a single admin, and the usual and normal block procedure is for a single admin to review it when an unblock request was made. The community need not get involved unless the admin requests a review of the block, which normally happens here. The only practical difference BWilkins' choice made was to muddy up the situation unnecessarily; however, as I stated above, I do applaud his fringing the issue here (where it would have gona in the normal course of events%, despite the sqbject's fear of having his case reviewed by the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Beyond my Ken is drama mongering or acting in good faith. IMO he seems to be trying to discredit anyone with a opinion that differes from his own. In this BWilkins did do the correct thing by directing the editor to here. Granted it could've been handled anywhere but a topic ban should always be decided by the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Louise, if I'm "drama mongering" I'm doing a damn bad job of it. No, this really is good faith concern on my part, in this case about unnecessary process, a concern I've raised in the past in completely different circumstances as well. I have no desire to rake BWilkins over the coals, nor do I have any opinion about his administrative actions in general, I simply think his take on the situation was wrong and his actions made things unnecessarily complicated. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's what makes horse racing, politics and Wiki-discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond my Ken is one of the main reasons why I wanted this issue to be resolved somewhere other than AN/I. There are a few editors who show up in nearly all of the AN/I threads related to these articles and generally turn them into mudslinging matches, and Beyond my Ken has been one of the worst examples of this.

I was also worried that his doing this would prevent the thread from reaching a consensus, regardless of whether or not my ban is justified, but it looks like the opposition to my ban is strong enough that this might be happening anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's made his point, and whichever admin counts the !votes and determines consensus will take it into advisement, I'm sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will that be happening soon? This thread seems to have served its purpose: there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock. At this point, the only remaining discussion seems to be Beyond My Ken and Hipocrite attempting to drag out the issue and muddy the water, and I don’t think allowing the thread to continue down this path will accomplish anything.

If an admin doesn’t close this thread soon, I think it would be best if everyone stopped replying to both of them. By continuing to reply, we’re only contributing to this thread being diverted from its original topic, and making it more difficult for an uninvolved admin to make a decision about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A marvelous example of the passive/aggressive behavior BWilkins pointed out on your talk page, Captain Occam -- reiterating the bogus !vote count from above as if the objection about block !voting had never been raised, at the same time getting in a dig at those raising the issue -- all while moaning about how badly you've been treated, when, in fact, you've been on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of special treatment -- justifiable special treatment, but special nonetheless. I'm only sorry that the middle option (return to straightforward block) didn't receive more support, so that you could see the difference between what it means to be blocked, and what has happened to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty ironic that I’m the person who’s been accused of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. I know, I know I said that I wouldn’t reply anymore… --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I'm pretty dense. I don't see any "irony" and I don't know what it is you think I'm not hearing. I hear perfectly well that my point's been made, and there'd be no need for me to restate it if you hadn't barged right it and acted like it never existed. I'd be quite happy to let it lie, if you would agree to as well.

Pax? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that nobody commenting here other than you thinks that the “alignment” of the users voting makes any difference in this thread. Even some of the “non-aligned” users apparently think this idea is ridiculous, but you don’t seem willing to accept what they have to say about it either.

I don’t expect you to be willing to change your mind about whether this makes a difference or not, but if you’re willing to acknowledge how many other users disagree with you about it (both “aligned” and “non-aligned”), I guess I’m willing to let this drop. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't concur with your analysis of the situation, which overstates things in a way that's quite inaccurate, but I have no desire to delve further into your misapprehension, as it's essentially a side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

I think there is way too much wikilawyering taking place. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than debating whether this is a block or a topic ban. Let us imagine there was no arbcom case, Occam would have been blocked and would have had to go through the normal appeals process. This is what all the blocked users on the edit warring noticeboard have to go through. By coincidence, Occam is involved in an Arbcom case, and because there is a deadline for submitting evidence, it is only fair that Occam participates. It is for this reason only that Occam was conditionally unblocked, and nothing else. Most blocked editors listed at the edit warring noticeboard are not involved in an Arbcom case, and therefore do not even get conditional unblocks. They do not get a chance to post on Jimbo Wales' talk page or to post an unblock appeal on ANI either. I therefore believe that Occam has been given a lot of preferential treatment, that most blocked users don't get because he is coincidentally involved in an Arbcom case. The main problem here is inconsistencies in the application of the blocking policy. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However the one thing that is really really lacking and killing this case is the refusal for the blocking admin to participate here. I would be open to reviewing the evidence for this block if the admin would discuss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi, if I could’ve just used the unblock template and gotten an admin to review my block in the normal fashion, I would’ve preferred that. I suspect that most uninvolved admins would have overturned a block that was implemented without any specific explanation of what it was based on. But because of my conditional unblock, the unblock template was removed on a technicality, and now I’m having to go through this protracted AN/I argument that (as I stated above) I would have much rather avoided. What you regard as “preferential treatment” for me, I regard as nothing but a massive inconvenience required of me in order to achieve the same result (appealing my block) that I could have achieved much more easily otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wish I was a wikilawyer. I could charge 300 wikidollars a wikihour, and show my wikiskills in the wikicourtroom. It'd be wikisweet... HalfShadow 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest block against User:Hippo43 has just ended and already he's already announced his intention to resume his disruption[8] and has launched a personal attack against me, accusing me of being dishonest.[9] I warned him about resuming his disruption[10] and the PA[11] but he doesn't appear to be interested in getting along nicely with his fellow editors.[12] Given his history of disruption and repeated blocks, can someone just block him again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor here.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo43 has a history of being blocked for edit warring. They have been told that their next block for edit warring is likely to be indefinite. I can't see any reason to rush to block them for saying something is "dishonest" and then immediately explaining why they think so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have no intention whatever of being disruptive, and have said no such thing, as Quest knows. While I was blocked, he re-inserted text for the fourth time, against a clearly-established consensus. ([14], [15], [16], [17]) Surely this behaviour is edit-warring on his part? After my block expired, instead of simply restoring the version supported by consensus, I re-engaged in the discussion. [18] I am entirely open to discussing this, but said that if no consensus emerged within a few days I would remove the disputed text. This is obviously not disruptive at all and seems more than fair to me.

Given his previous hostility toward me, I was no doubt naive to describe his edits as 'dishnesty'. I'm genuinely sorry if he felt that this was an attack on him - that was not my intention. However, as I explained in my reply to him at my talk page, some of his actions have been dishonest - his representation of the disagreement, his failure to inform other editors that he started a thread at RSN, and his discussion comments, and now his false claim that I "announced my intention to resume my disruption".

Again, to be clear, I have no intention of being disruptive and have actually sought discussion with Quest on this very point. Given his repeated reverts to a version clearly opposed by consensus, who is really being disruptive here? --hippo43 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for immediate action here. Hippo43 is perfectly capable of being productive if he chooses, and his opportunities for choosing not to be have pretty much run out considering the scrutiny his edits have attracted. If he keeps his nose clean he's benefitting the encyclopedia; if not, I doubt there will be much uproar following an indef for persistent edit warring. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see hippo as a good user, who has got a bit stuck on one article. I interact with him on football articles and he seems pretty sensible there. He should probably avoid that one article for a while. Certainly hasn't done anything wrong since his last block. --John (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is an open invite with regards to what john has said, user hippo has got a bit stuck on more than one article, since his last block he has engaged in another argument / war here(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, YMMV on that one. I see this as a civil argument rather than a war myself. I think his last edit was a good effort to streamline the article. If you have diffs that show him edit warring there, please bring them to our attention of course. --John (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were against streamlining the article? I understand it takes 2 to tango but still, he has reverted material on the rangers fc article four times since being unblocked (23.12, 13 June), (16.54pm 14 June), (19.53, 14 June), (1.39am, 15 June).(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Someone ought to take a look at this.[19] USER:WillBildUnion is tag-spamming and edit-warring on the article Arthur Rubin apparently in retaliation for some sort of content dispute at Cleopatra VII and Son of God. Not sure what's going on but it doesn't look good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WillBildUnion is a new user and might not realize he's doing something wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a Wikiquette alert regarding his behavior. After attempting to insert unsourced and potentially controversial material in articles such as Abraham, he got angry when Arthur Rubin removed it. More details are in that report. He has been pointed to WP:AGF multiple times, and accused Arthur Rubin and me of vandalism for trying to clean up after him, and of "dominating" Wikipedia for pointing him to and trying to hold him to guidelines like WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:AGF. He has been told repeatedly that his behavior is unacceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the AfD notice since it linked to an old discussion. There have been three previous AfDs for Arthur Rubin, all resulting in "Keep", and since notability once acquired, is not lost I have advised WilBildUnion not to replace it without very good reason. I'm perfectly prepared to block for disruptive editing in this case. Rodhullandemu 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched Abraham article and I haven't posted anything controversial. I did however post on talk page of the said article. My time here have been nothing else than to assume good faith but I got bitten, hounded, harassed, vandalized, terrorized and dominated by useradmin(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:WillBildUnion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Caesarion_section

I beg pardon and hopefully things will sort out smoother in on due, as is future.

WillBildUnion (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't something you were intending to bring in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen posts to a number of talk pages by WillBildUnion such as [20], others asserting that the Hyksos were Hebrews - the problem being that he is not just doing this on multiple pages but is not providing sources (although he says they exist) even when he has been told that this is OR. He hasn't been vandalised. terrorized, dominated, etc although I think people are understandably getting impatient with him. Dougweller (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He (shortly after this post) started adding sources, but they don't seem reliable. I admit that adding 6 tags to 4 sources may seem like harrassment, but none of them were reliable, and 2 didn't support the material sentence in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent proceedings have made me indicate that harassment was a false claim. Pardon me. eod. WillBildUnion (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the accusation was that you were the one harassing, I don't think you get to declare the thread closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is edit-warring across a range of articles, see for instance Jesus] where his edit summaries are also dubious at best and might be seen as PAs. 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)

Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I are in dispute about the proposed wording for the section Abortion#Health risks. Nutriveg is a long-time contributor to the page and I came to the page two weeks ago following a request from MastCell (talk · contribs) at WikiProject Medicine for more input. My impression is that there are two rough groupings of editors: those who have a pro-life perspective and those who object to favouring that. I'm sure that each grouping sincerely believes that they edit in line with the neutral point of view, but a conflict has been underway there for a long time before I came into it.

After an edit-war on 8 June, editors were cautioned and one editor was blocked temporarily. On 10 June, Nutriveg was blocked for 24 hours following an ANI report (for edit-warring over his removal of reliable sources that he questions), and the page fully protected.

Since then the dispute has moved to the talk page (currently 365 kB), and I have concentrated on trying to get editors to find sources related to the issue. Doc James put forward six sources, but Nutriveg is always able to find an objection to any suggested source. He eventually accepted one source (that didn't mention the figures for maternal mortality rate) and crafted a piece of text that reflected that source alone. I have consistently objected to discarding other sources, as they raised other issues, but Nutriveg has now unilaterally decided that the scope of the text should be just that which his preferred source covers, and then claimed that I was the only editor holding up consensus. This is a manipulation of the fact that most of the editors found all of the sources reliable, including his preferred source, allowing him to claim that that single source had the approval of all editors. I proposed an alternate text that I believed covered all of the issues raised by all of the sources, and suggested mediation of an RfC to to resolve the dispute between us.

So far this is a content dispute, but Nutriveg then, without discussion, posted an informal "request for comment on the talk page", phrased in such a way to define the scope of the dispute in his own terms, and making no mention of my proposed text. He then notified the participants on their talk pages, asking them to express their opinion on his text. When I responded by adding further questions to present my side of the dispute, he removed them from the section and created a new section for them, thus marginalising my side of the dispute. His claim is that they are a "different discussion". I replaced my proposals into the original section and cautioned Nutriveg that I regarded his refactoring of my talk page contributions as disruptive and that I would seek sanctions if he repeated that. He then reverted me, putting my part of the RfC back into the section he wanted, and removing my warning. I will not further an edit war by reverting him, but I cannot accept the degree of ownership that Nutriveg exercises over both the article and its talk page. It makes it utterly impossible to work in a collaborative manner while he feels he can dictate the terms of any dispute resolution. I am now unable to exercise any further AGF and request that uninvolved eyes review the conduct of editors at Abortion (mine included) to find a solution.

I request that action be taken be taken to prevent Nutriveg from edit-warring on the talk page in order to marginalise those he disagrees with; and that, if necessary, he receives a topic ban to allow consensus to be formed. I will now step away from the focus of this dispute and will not edit the article or its talk page until such time as the dispute is settled. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning. I agree that the ownership needs to stop, and that the refactoring of your comments was quite unjustified. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(As an involved editor): There is a behavioral issue here, which is fairly pronounced ownership and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of Nutriveg (talk · contribs). He's pretty much checked off every tickbox on WP:OWN, been blocked for edit-warring, and swamped the talk page with impenetrable repetitions of the same arguments. Refactoring others' talkpage posts would be a logical progression. The wellspring is what I think is a fairly deep misunderstanding of sourcing policy on Nutriveg's part, combined with a resistance to taking on board outside input.

It started with Nutriveg removing material from The Lancet and other mainstream medical journals, because some of the authors were affiliated with Guttmacher. The talk page thread is here; notice he also dismisses the WHO as a reliable source in the same thread. It goes downhill from there; this heroic effort, in which literally dozens of reliable sources are rejected by Nutriveg on various goalpost-moving grounds, is typical but not unique.

RexxS and others have actually been much more patient than I, but I think everyone is reaching the limits of their tolerance. I think progress can be made - in fact, the article has enjoyed periods of relative calm when Nutriveg has been away from it or blocked. There are a number of solid editors working there right now. I would strongly favor asking Nutriveg to leave the article for a few weeks, because I think that will lead to a lot of constructive progress. I'd actually be happy to stay away too, if people are concerned that I'm pushing to have a "content opponent" sanctioned. In fact, if something is not done about Nutriveg's editing, and soon, I'll leave the article anyway in the interest of my own sanity.

Again, please take this as the input of an involved editor, with whatever grains of salt you think are appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a long time contributor to that article. You joined that discussion answering a call from MastCell where he did so in a campaign tone: "I will say upfront that I personally think that the interpretation of WP:MEDRS being pushed on the talk page is extreme and divergent from the actual content of the guideline" What basically guided your contribution to the article so far, taking lightly about WP:MEDRS and pushing for the use of all sources.

In another moment yourself also decided to campaign in that same place using the same kind of biased messages.

You joined that discussion redoing a change of MastCell early did, what eventually lead to an editing war and the blocking of that other user that reverted once.

Later you started raising minor issues, like complaining of any source ever "removed" from the article without caring about in what context they were (re)moved or having a good argument to support of how they should be used. In the between you kept asking for the interference of a specific administrator who had earlier showed disagreement with me (SheffieldSteel above), which finally led to an ANI open by that same administrator and my blocking.

Later you took the same strategy, this time more careful about the content of the sources you were pushing, to decide to push for the use all the sources in the article, instead of the one that better fit MEDRS and was commonly agreed to fairly represent the problematic issue in discussion, except for you (RexxS) and your fellow MastCell, that changed his former minor restrictive opinion on that issue to a completely different one, maybe after seeing you pushing so much for that position.

You make claims that "your discussion" was moved when it was you who created a new section in the middle of an existing section which already had comments from another user and me addressing the issues immediately above in a serious provocative action of disrupting that consensus building process. You repeated that action, when that discussion had further evolved, to move that discussion section, reinserting your questions in the middle, at the same time you also commented in that same discussion section so I had to have the extra work of readding that commentary beyond reverting your discussion section move.

Now you create this ANI about that discussion you were a minor voice at the same time you call other users who had problems with me in the past (Doc James bellow) to join this ANI discussion.

Your way of handling these content issues to lead them to administrative actions in a scenario yourself is a major problematic actor is what I truly call disruptive!--Nutriveg (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say that (Lloyd, 2005) "satisfies our needs for sources" this in no way means we should limit ourselves to only this source. And while the second suggested wording is okay it can be improved upon / clarified.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nutriveg, I have no "dog in this race", and I thought I was trying to paint a fair picture by referring to you as a "long-term contributor". You have 56 edits to Abortion, while I have one, where my edit summary was "please don't remove sourced content without good reason". My apologies if I have misled this forum. I hope than anyone reviewing the links that Nutriveg has provided would be able to conclude that I have acted in good faith throughout. I have tried to be reasonable, while maintaining my stance that reliable sources are the solution, while removing or rejecting them is the problem. Nevertheless, if anyone here feels that I deserve censure, then I will accept that, and look to improve in the future. I now see that Nutriveg still does not believe that moving my part of the RfC to a new section twice is both refactoring and edit-warring. Please note - it's not entirely clear from the diffs - that I added my questions at the end his questions (below a level 3 sub-heading, "Another option"), while his action was to remove it from the section he created and make it in an entirely different level 2 section with a new title. The ownership of the talk page continues and there is a real need for uninvolved administrators to review the situation. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior so far is one of trying to create administrative problems. I started editing this article just a few weeks ago. While recently you're the only one stopping article progress toward a commonly agreed solution for a specific problem by insisting in using all sources and lately insisting for the discussion of many new unrelated issues (developing countries, unsafe abortion) in the middle of an very problematic unfinished discussion about a restricted point that is taking several days. You may have had the opportunity to make few edits on the article, but in the last two days you've been the single loud dissident voice, since the very moment we were almost reaching consensus.

Now you create this ANI under false claims I moved a discussion section, when it was you who initially moved that discussion section to the end a section you created, an action I had to revert for the sake of continuing that discussion that already started, but you inserted unrelated questions in the middle of the existing one, that I had to properly attribute their authoring to you.--Nutriveg (talk)00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having watched the debacle unfold I can only say that the original complaint is spot on. I see issues with WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:GFCA, WP:V, WP:RS, (WP:MEDRS) added to unfamiliarity with circular reasoning, the scientific method and confirmation bias. In short somebody is fighting for The Truth. At this point a RFC regarding behaviour appears more apt than on article content.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: looking at other (pseudo)science-related articles I feel we have a widespread attempt by the anti-science crowd to teach the controversy, which may need a general approach. Include all science (inclusion criteria?) articles in the original ArbCom case?--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, make yourself clear. Abortion is medical practice not (pseudo)science, as isn't epidemiology the subject of the (so) problematic sentence we have been trying to address. While my suggestion for that sentence was the one which reached more (if any kind) of consensus so far, so I'm clearly interested about the better representation of that issue. There's no disagreement about the essence of that sentence, the only problem is a couple of editors trying to give more attention to a issue than the (few) sources themselves, felling exempted to follow WP:MEDRS criteria for something if they believe that's true and deserved of exceptional attention. And a specific editor (RexxS) trying to WP:WIN by destructing the discussion process when consensus is being reached and forging situations that he can later call for administrative interference. Please keep bias outside of this discussion!--Nutriveg (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Pseudo)science = pseudoscience + science. Iow, my suggestion is that the ruling on pseudoscience might/should be applicable to science-related articles such as abortion. --- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing comments after others responded is a big no-no. Please resist the urge to do so in the future!--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's sometimes called edit conflict when two editors are still editing their comments and other write something. It's not my problem if you analyzed and answered my comments so fast, at the same time I saw problems with my commentary and was fixing those. If you likely want to complement your former answer I'll likely understand that as good faith.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI matter began with a complaint by RexxS about certain talk page edits by Nutriveg. Before those talk page edits by Nutriveg occurred, RexxS madethis talk page edit, and I am curious whether people think this RexxS edit was okay or not. My cursory look at the RexxS edit suggests that it may have inadvertently altered the meaning of another editor's comment by putting new material immediately prior to that other editor's comment. In any event, I would urge Nutriveg to only edit talk pages when doing so is clearly appropriate (e.g. removal of vandalism), and the more appropriate thing in this instance would have been to ask RexxS to move his own comment to a less confusing location.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general practice in content RfCs is that following any preamble, questions come first with support/oppose comments below each one. Further general comments then come below that in a discussion section. I added my questions (3,4,5) below Nutriveg's (1,2) and before the "---" which marked off the general discussion taking place below. If someone can suggest a better position for my questions than immediately below the previous ones – bearing in mind that I firmly believe I should have the right to offer alternate proposals in a content RfC – then I'd be happy to hear it. At present there is still the appearance of two RfC's being conducted at that talk page. --RexxS (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, whether Nutriveg was right or wrong to move your comment(and I'm not sure yet), I think it's pretty clear that the moved material was at least somewhat confusing. You inserted it immediately before another editor's comment that he had "no particular opinion about the phrasing specified above.". Thus, you made it seem like the other user had no objection to your phrasing. That seems like a no-no to me, because editors must not change the meaning of other editors' comments. Moreover, even if this were a formal RFC, I think the person who starts the RFC should get some deference regarding the format. If it were a user RFC, for example, I don't think the subject of the RFC would be entitled to modify it much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should mention that I am involved at the article in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify Anythingyouwant point: it wasn't just another user who had commented in that section before RexxS moved it in the first time. The second time he moved that discussion section it had even more comments. Those comments there were clearly about the two questions above, where RexxS isolated that discussion section by moving it to the end of a new section he created, where he starts that new section by expressing his own opinion about the topic above instead of using the already created discussion section he moved to end of his comments/questions and where theses issues he pointed could be further discussed in a consensus building process. Those questions RexxS created weren't about the same issue: if (Lloyd, 2005) was a source that satisfied our needs for a updated reliable source about a specific problematic sentence, which has been discussed for several days. The questions he created were mainly about other issues he would like to see better represented in the article (developing countries/unsafe abortion, increased risk risk of complication with increasing gestational age), when many of these issues were already represented in that article (in the same "health" section, in other sections and specific articles) which content he is not well acquainted since he assumes to have edited that article only once, reverting an edit and so reinstating a recent change that was already reverted twice, what eventually lead to an edit warring that resulted in the blocking of a user that reverted that recent change another time. In all those cases RexxS made that move he took care to comment in that or another section at the same time he moved the discussion section, without making those two distinct actions clear in the edit summary, turning a revert of that move inherently problematic since that had to be done manually where he later could say I was making a deliberate move when I was actually just reverting his own move.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is not the venue to go into a content dispute. There are real behavioral issues here, and administrative oversight and/or intervention is sorely needed to help address them. RexxS is not the problem - in fact, he's been more patient with Nutriveg than most. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the ones seeking administrative actions to silence those voices in disagreement with your supported POV in an content dispute.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What POV is that? The one in all the sources that you're trying to exclude from the article? If the situation were as you painted it, you wouldn't have been blocked by an uninvolved admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss content here. But I can say that POV is one of pushing for WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and showing little respect for WP:MEDRS, specially the when it talks about the use of up to date sources, a requisite ignored in face of the very few updated sources supporting such POV.

I was blocked for being a minor voice under such same kind of attack that created this ANI, by those same POV supporters, including you which early said to be neutral, but now revealed your real position in that content dispute.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring, a form of disruptive editing. When an involved admin warns you about your conduct, you complain that it is a content dispute. But when an uninvolved admin sanctions you, you really ought to pay attention to what they say. That is partly what blocks are for.

You accuse unspecified other editors of POV pushing, but you seem unable to define the POV that you think we are pushing. Is it perhaps the view that abortion is safer than childbirth? That is certainly what all those reliable sources seem to say on the subject. Your POV, on the other hand, is evident from your first edit to Abortion, where you (whether through malice, impatience or incompetence I do not know) misrepresented a source in order to get a pro-life talking point into the article. And yes, you are correct to observe that I am now happily wearing my editor hat, getting involved in content discussion at the article talk page, and improving the article. It makes a refreshing change from wearing the admin hat all the time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no POV in that I just saw and used the information in the head of that news article, it's there, you recognized once already, so stop making false accusations against me and assuming bad faith on my edits.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I helped write WP:MEDRS, and if I'd known that someone like Nutriveg would be allowed to misuse it as a bludgeon, I'd never have bothered. You cite MEDRS constantly (usually advocating a doctrinaire interpretation of one of its subclauses to override its actual goal of producing comprehensive medical coverage). But you don't understand it, and a number of editors have tried to help you better understand it, to no avail. Here you remove PMID 15096333 (a review article) with the claim that it's a "tertiary source". In fact, as WP:MEDRS clearly defines them, review articles are secondary (and preferred) sources. So despite your constant appeals to MEDRS, you don't understand its basics, you translate your misunderstandings into edits that detract from the article, you don't listen to anyone who tries to discuss things with you, and you edit-war to keep your misunderstandings in the article. What should we do about this? MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, twice)This is not a place to discuss content, you deleted a tertiary source and included a secondary source contradicting the previous text, then I reverted such edit to restore that deleted text/reference to later reinclude the new text and cite the secondary contesting the tertiary one. You should not feel exempted to follow a policy just because you feel you're the source of true.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of: "At this point a RFC regarding behaviour appears more apt than on article content."--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But the last time I dealt with tendentious editing on an abortion-related article, it took six months of begging for administrative intervention, followed by a futile user-conduct RfC, followed by a drawn-out Arbitration case, just to deal with a single obstructive editor (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12). I don't have the patience or time to spend another 6 months dealing with this. RfC's tend to be useless when the central problem is that the user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, you should not repeat the same mantra until you get support for it, and you should have waited to listen to the other part before taking conclusions about MastCell accusations above .--Nutriveg (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it f***ing unbelievable that after repeatedly being warned to stop you continue to rearrange talk pages in order to create an incomprehensible mess. Not only that but you cowardly disguise your manipulation by calling it "edit conflict." Having seen your total disregard for policy I will comment on the article and more specifically the techniques used to obstruct and obfuscate.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF and all that jazz Nescio. Heck, I just ec'd with you when you just edited your last comment. Arkon (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is a two way street. Let's see. My first warning, above, is about a so-called ec with 13 min in between his two edits. Unfortunately he missed my response when altering the initial comment (see above) so was unable to just leave it and make a new response. The just above you will find the following timestamps 1 MastCell Talk 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) -question by MC- 2 Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -my response- 3 MastCell Talk 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -response by MC-. For reasons beyond my comprehension at 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)!!! Nutriveg is moving the three comments I cite out of the way in order to ... why exactly? The original discussion is at best difficult to recognise. Regarding amending my own comment, you may have noticed that nobody had responded yet. Which of cource is the principal difference between the two actions! As a rule of thumb I allow small alterations, but only untill others respond. Then I will not change but add a new comment.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! I was answering MastCell, looking for diffs and stuff, then when I hit submit I got an edit conflict from you, rearranged my comments in another page so I could submit again, answered you and ... another edict conflict from MastCell. Now Arkon,(sigh) don't put the blame on me if you're so fast to emit an opinion.

To make clear my last edit was 00:03, when then I started answering MastCell here, then you edited 00:05 (when I was probably still editing), when I tried to submit I got an edit from you, tried again (as described) and got one from MastCell (00:17) and I could finally submit the answer only 00:20, and didn't edit elsewhere in the between. I'm sick and tired of people assuming bad faith with such frequency.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Nescio has been doing some recent edits in Abortifacient so please provide a disclaimer next time you get involved in discussions of issues you're already a content editor.--Nutriveg (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShalomOlam has made two blatant reverts to Gaza flotilla raid which is under a WP:1RR protection, in contradiction with the long discussions and consensus on the talk page. The diffs are [21] and [22]. The user received multiple warnings from other users regarding his recent POV edits and reverts on the same article, both on the article's and their own talk page. Please note that it is a sensitive semi-protected article about a current event. Numerous users already received a 24-hour block for violating its 1RR restriction. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 edits that I have made were according to previous discussions in the talk page of the article. These are not my POV (or any POV), on the contrary - they were made to make the article more neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were not in line with the general consensus on the talk page. Even if they were, it doesn't really matter. --386-DX (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to act based on what happened yesterday. However, "I'm moving it back to the current talk page consensus" is not an excuse for violating edit warring restrictions, including the generic 3RR and the article specific 1RR here. If this happens again someone is likely to get blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Rohedin, what I am about to tell you has been happening for some time, but I feel that someone else is editing in my account to make contributions to soap opera lists. I did not report this right away because who ever is editing in my account has not done anything that leaves me unable to use the account.

Even though the answer might seem obvious and simple to make, I am still pondering on if I should just let this guy continue to make harmless edits to my account or if I should ask someone to provide me with a list of IPs that might have been using my account. What do you think I should do? Rohedin ^TALK 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your password. Is there an example of a particular edit that you did not make? Is it possible that a roommate, family member, or coworker is using your computer or that you left yourself logged in on a public computer? --B (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of All My Children cast members. Rohedin ^TALK 23:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps you saved your password on a public computer or friends computer and they are editing without realising that they are editing on your account? It is possible that your password has been hacked but this seems less likely if the edits are constructive. Perhaps changing your password would resolve this issue? Have you tried doing this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying this is not you? That's from today, so that probably points to either you stayed logged in somewhere or someone guessed your password. Either way, change your password to something secure (letters, numbers, and symbols). --B (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe someone was editing via my account. Rohedin ^TALK 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just change your password, it's the easiest way if you still have access to your account. If you don't, but you have an email set, you can email a new password, then change your password. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check your email address, under "My preferences", to ensure that it hasn't been changed. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also, you should set a hash and leave it on your userpage to prove your identity, in case you lose access to your account; see the bottom of my userpage as an example. (For more information, see Template:User committed identity.) That way, you can prove you regain access to your account if you do so through other means (such as emailing a new password) if you are blocked, as admins typically block compromised accounts indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser would be able to tell if more than IP had edited using your account. Looking at the difference in topics, I have to ask if there is a female member of your household who could be using your account by accident? My partner is also a wikipedia editor, and we have to be careful that we switch to our own user settings every time we use the pc, or we could end up editing as each other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your password would be no help if you use a password list, and someone in your house is using the computer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you change your password, it logs you out of any other computer where you are logged in. --B (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that if Rohedin uses Firefox, it automatically stores the changed password. He hasn't come back to us to say if there is a possibility that his sis/mom/gf is using the computer. If they are, changing the password won't fix the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox and Ubuntu 10.04, no one in my family has an understanding of Linux. Rohedin ^TALK 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't need to - in fact, it's more likely to happen if they don't. Does each member of your family have a separate logon, or do they just turn the computer on and load up Firefox? If it is the latter, then what is happening is that Wikipedia routinely holds a logon for 30 days. So if your partner/sister or whatever goes to Wikipedia, it's automatically logged in as you. If she takes a look at the cast of whatever soap opera she's interested in and makes an edit, it will appear under your account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please request a password change immediately. From what I can tell, the edits you claim you did not do are done from a different geographical location (Near Milwaukee). I'll keep an eye on your account, and if it edits from that location again I will block it as compromised. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you run a CU on any users that were blocked in Milwaukee? I would really like to know who this guy is. Rohedin ^TALK 00:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did, I would not disclose that information. Sorry. Please simply fix the problem by changing your password posthaste. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but I am going to search and find a person with a similar editing style and see what I can do from there. Rohedin ^TALK 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.144.48.89 (talk · contribs) appears to be in Wisconsin.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was this: [23] either the user doesn't have control of their account or they're just running around vandalizing. they should be blocked until this is sorted.--Crossmr (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crossmr. This has gone from hypothetically bad to actually disruptive, so blocking until the problem subsides is advisable. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in control of my account. No foregin I.Ps have sailed on this account since the ANI topic. Rohedin ^TALK 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be blocked for whatever that was. Both of those edits were disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked the account (as either compromised, or vandalising). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be stating the obvious, but if this guy changed his password and then it got rehacked, it may indicate that his computer is infected with a trojan and/or the malicious user has his email account password. A computer reformat might need to be done based on what has been said here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever admin reviews this mess and the unblock request, I'd very much urge a really careful look at Rohedin's editing history before granting the unblock. It is quite possible that Rohedin is a previously blocked/banned user who is just playing some game and yanking everybody's chain here. Rohedin started editing on May 27, 2010 and it is pretty clear that he is not a new user. Within several days of opening the account, Rohedin proceeded to do the following things (among others):

• Opened an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies affecting deletion outcome, where he complains about the banning/blocking practices being too tough
• Plunged into SPI investigations, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan/Archive
• Plunged into a number of ANI threads
• Started a bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TotalDramaBot
• Nominated an unprepared user for adminship, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hadger
  • The RfA was nomination was for a user who was clearly not ready and several participants characterized the nomination as "trolling". I myself thought that it looked rather fishy. Among other things, the RfA page was quickly vandalized by a couple of IPs, including User:98.198.230.37 here[24] with a message "I love newgrounds [...] TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS WILL RULE NEWGROUNDS!". Note that the very first page created by Rohedin just a few days earlier, was about Newgrounds Linux, currently userfied at User:Rohedin/Newgrounds Linux.
• When questions about his possible prior accounts were raised at his talk page, including by an admin User:Rodhullandemu, Rohedin pointedly refused to answer them. See the June 4 version[25] of Rohedin's talk page, section "Prior usernames".

Now he says[26] (at Coren's talk page) that his current account is hacked by some other sockpuppet, User:Onelifefreak2007 who, according to Rohedin, "turns out to be a blocked user who does follow the same style of editing". All this sounds as rather too much to me. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of this account more or less straight away, and was concerned that no new user would be making such edits. When I challenged the editor, I got no reply. Perhaps an SPI report would have clarified the position then, but I let it pass. However, what has happened since does not fill me with confidence as to this user. He claims "computer savvy" but cannot even secure his own account. I do not think so. If he's on the level, let him start a new, clean account. If he's a sock, let him be cast into the eternal pit of damnation. Rodhullandemu 02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – RohanMalik1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of MrRohanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RohanMalik1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not really sure where to go with this. The editor repeatedly uploads non-free images without descriptions/licenses and moves pages using edit summaries like "because" or "cuz i said so". They have been left numerous warnings and notices on their talk page, but never respond to them, nor do they seem to amend their ways. While I believe there may be an language barrier issue involved, it gets old having to "clean up" and/or correct their edits (add licensing etc). They're trying to honestly improve Wikipedia, but how much is an "improvement" worth, when it only creates more work for other editors. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe they may be a sock of blocked user MrRohanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's just straight engaging in sock puppetry. RohanMalik1999 indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. –MuZemike 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago a vandal added to the Sherri Shepherd article that she had died.[27] The same editor added a number of perhaps non-vandalism edits relating to the parents or other relatives of subjects.[28] I reverted all the edits. Today, another IP address added to the Sherri Shepherd article information regarding Sherri's parents death.[29] It may be true, but I can't find any support for this claim in sources. Both IP addresses originate from Staten Island, New York, according to the Geolocate tool. Thus, it's most likely the return of the original vandal. Today's IP editor has similarly made numerous edits adding non-sourced information relating to parents and other relatives of article subjects.[30] I would revert all the IP edits en masse but first wanted to gain input from other editors before taking such action. Thank you, --PinkBull 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first IP's edit saying Sherri Shepherd died (with enough detail to clearly be a hoax, instead of a misunderstanding) is evidence he's a vandal. Thus, all his other edits are suspect and should be rolled back. The extreme similarity between the first and second IP is evidence they're the same person. Thus, all their recent edits should be rolled back too. Sherri Shepherd seems to be a focus, I'll semi-protect for a little while, and roll back the edits if they haven't been already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I presume the IP address should be blocked. --PinkBull 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got distracted by something shiny. I mass rolledback the IP's edits a while ago, and blocked for a short time. After review, this looks like a very long term thing from this IP, so I assume it's static, and am going to {{anonblock}} it for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.68.26.91 appears to be long term, [31] despite some edits from IP 68.174.243.102.[32] I'll keep some of the pages on my watchlist in case the vandal resurfaces elsewhere. For what this information is worth, the vandal tends to target the bios of African-Americans, more specifically, young African-American women.--PinkBull 03:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read a talk page post by User:Sven_nestle on talk:Violence_Against_Women_Act. He claims to be involved in legal action to appeal the Violence_Against_Women_Act law and stated in his talk post:

"Anyhow I do not appreciate technocrats nor feudalism. Leave my words alone. If there is better criticism fine. But deleting all criticism might just get you sued."

Now, I've advised him of WP:COI, WP:TGP and WP:NLT but should he be blocked until he withdraws this? Since the threat is not directed at a specific user I haven't blocked him but I'd appreciate input as if he does not withdraw the remark I will.
Also, since this person claims to be involved in a case related to his law, he should not be editing this article per WP:COI - I'd appreciate mor eyes on the page in case my advice is ignored. Any input would be welcome--Cailil ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little vague to block over, but I'll go reinforce your warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sven has continued the behavior after warnings yesterday. The legalish-threat was minor, but they're violating WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI on the Violence Against Women Act article and its talk page. I have left a final warning on his talk page a little while ago. If they continue past that final warning I will block; if I'm offline and more happens, I urge other admins to review and act if they feel it's appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on this as well re: WP:BATTLE and WP:OWN. He's also not engaging with our talk posts - which isn't helping--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been using the IP 70.174.180.147 account (as a logged-out editor rather than a sock) which was blocked, for 31 hours, tonight by Excirial--Cailil ^talk 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of edits have been made in the past few weeks to Judith Regan by the user and IP address named above, with the obvious aim of depicting the controversies surrounding Regan as being a part of a Fox-backed "smear campaign." All of their edits appear to have been to the Regan article, save for one now-reverted edit by Johnsullivan10 to the Jane Friedman article concerning Friedman's alleged role in the "smear campaign." I already tagged the Regan article for cleanup, and believe those users should be blocked. I am an experienced user, but no wiki expert or admin, so I'm not exactly sure of the proper procedure. Niremetal (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't delved into the history of the article, but it's a mess on both sides. I tweaked the lede, if it's still in bad shape tomorrow I'll try and clean up some of the sensationalism and resume-talk. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that Judith Regan article is atrocious. Terms like "made up" do not belong in Wikipedia articles, even if there are sources, and headers like "The Smear Against Regan Continues with a Mickey Mantle book" are far too POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of some of that just now, but more cutting may be required. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article on a company called "TechSmith". Well a little while later i see it saying that i have source issues. Well i added sources, to the best of my abilities based off what i understood on how to add sources (I just started with Wikipedia) and it is still saying that I need to add sources. So could someone help me, show me what i did wrong; and or fix it. THANKS!! To find the article just search "TechSmith" or click here [[33]] Your #1 Man For Anything Techy Related! (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, give a look-see to WP:REFB, that is the "references for beginners" page. That will teach you everything you need to know about references. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac, you need to find reliable sources which are independent of your company, such as newspaper or a professional journal discussing it in a non-trivial manner (i.e. not just a casual mention). The sources that are currently there seem to be the company talking about itself, which means they are primary sources. What you need are reliable secondary sources. Also, the current article is written like a poor quality advertisement for the company, not a neutral encyclopedia article. Crum375 (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if it seems like a poor advertisment, as I guess thats just some form of writing I use. But I can assue you its not my company; I'm litterly just a 15 year old kid who likes them, and knows more about their products than just about anyone. Well other sources should be easy since i can think of 126 reviews from other companies, and authors. And i know they deserve a page because they are an international company that sells to over 30 countries world wide; so this should be easy. Thanks for your help; it's much appreciated since I'm just getting started with this whole Wikipedia thing. Your #1 Man For Anything Techy Related! (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a new user User:Abd r Raheem al Haq who is editing this Qur'an alone page beyond comprehension. for example

• removal of external links here.

I don't understand what he means by 'beyond comprehension' and I have already explained twice, maybe three times, elsewhere why they were removed. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply He hasn't given any good enough reasons for removals though. Accorrding to User:Abd r Raheem al Haq the external links he removed were websites promoting a so-called number 19 miracle, saying it promotes a sect who call themselves Submitters. But abd r raheem obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about as here is the biggest Sunni miracle website also promotes number 19 meaning his argument is void. (even though it wasn't a good reason to remove external links anyway)

• Undue weight and bad layouts here. He makes a heading for every single sentence.

This is a ridiculous exaggeration. On one occasion, being new, I made the headings too bold. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply On one occasion? Don't be dishonest please. You engaged in continuous edit warring whenever i removed them.

• His talk page suggests there is a conflict of interet too as his reasoning for deletion of external links was to minimize Rashad Khalifa POV even though Rashad is a Quranist. Either way, there is no evidence that the external links are Rashad Khalifa or United Submitters websites.

I do not need to prove what can be readily verified by going to the old list and clicking on the top five links, four are 19ers sites. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply See above (first bulletpoint).

• here he is also adding a forum website called Free Minds to the list of sub-sects. (Free Minds is simply a forum website)

Free-Minds is a prominent, online, Quranist community and forum, as the article describes it under 'Quranists Groups and Communities', this addresses an ongoing concern that Quranist purists, (non-affiliated Quranists) who have no leader to interpret the Quran for them and who very probably make up the majority of Quranists, especially in the English speaking world, are not even mentioned at all, whilst small sects in Egypt are. The mention of the Free-Minds community is short, at the bottom and can not realistically be considered to have been given undue weight. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply I have given you the benefit of the doubt before, and will do so again

• Then we have the most outrageous claim that Quranists face towards Jerusalem rather than Mecca here and make pilrimage there. Then goes on to say that "Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy." without reference.

Many Quranists do pray facing Jerusalem, myself included, I mentioned it, but it was removed. On reflection, it probably is a bit too fringe of a belief to mention in such a short article, but it is not rare to hear of Muslims who reject the notion that Mecca is the House of God as a Sunni corruption. I have not mentioned anything to do with it since. As for not giving a reference to back up the assertion that Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy, I didn't think anyone would question it. By definition, Quranists reject fundamental, orthodox beliefs. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply You admit "...On reflection, it probably is a bit too fringe of a belief..." Be more careful next time please.

• The very definition of "Quran alone" means without hadith, but in this edit summary he says that Quranists DO follow hadith essentially destroying the very nature of this article.

The article talks about groups who accept certain hadith and reject others. Quranists interpret the Quran without reference to the Hadith, they do not always reject the authenticity of every hadith - they are not all 19ers. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply You have not even responded to this accusation because you know you did wrong. You just skipped this question and made it sound like you answered it.

• He also added "it is not uncommon for Quranists to derive their own personal approaches to prayer" which is untrue and extremely controversial.

It is true and I fail to see how it's extremely controversial? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply The reason it is very controversial is that by this edit you are alienating Quranists as apostates of Islam. (which is a serious issue)

He has also added many other unreferenced passages and obviously doesn't know anything about Quranists. I have left some warnings on his page but am currently considering calling an administrator now that he doesn't seem to learn and is unwilling to read wikipedia policy guidelines. I think this user should be blocked temporarily until he learns not to make major revisions everytime he visits a page as he has done again here Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see very much wrong with this chain of edits. This is little more than a normal content dispute, although you're certainly not above scrunity yourself in pretty baseless accusations of vandalism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address edits and Abd r Raheem al Haq are the same person. Have you read all my points? Or should i consult someone more familiar with this Qur'an alone topic? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax Dude. Not everyone is going to see things your way. Maybe things will sway in your favor, maybe not. Just relax, let the thread take its course and be available for input. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I come across nonchalant in my responses to Iwanttoeditthissh's complaints, but if anyone reviews all that has gone on, on this page, his page, the discussion page etc., they'll see that I've explained myself at length already and got nothing, but abuse from Iwanttoeditthissh in return. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, im not trying to alienate new users and sorry if i've made you feel unwelcome but try to take a more cautious approach to articles please. I noticed you seem to aggressively dive in and completely rewrite things. By the way, Chris, i didn't say he was a vandal. I'm just saying that he writes carelessly that's all. I just thought he should have received a warning thats all.

I'm going to Re-edit the mistakes Abd r Raheem made at the moment, and i if he resumes edit-warring i hope appropriate action will be taken. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some other views here. This article, probably largely hoax, about a 15-year old Australian boxer, was stubbed on BLP grounds by Active Banana (talk · contribs). In order to bring it to AfD, I restored the last substantial version: it seemed to me that the stubbed version would only attract "speedy A7" opinions, and the uncited claims of championships and medals were what the AfD should consider. Active Banana has now stubbed it again, citing WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

It depends how you interpret "contentious" in WP:BLP, and the instruction "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked" in the AfD template. My interpretation is that the editing intended there is improvement of the article, e.g. by adding sources, and that stubbing the article amounts to "blanking". As regards WP:BLP, I don't think the intention, or current practice, is that anything unsourced in a BLP must be blanked - otherwise new unsourced BLPs would need to be blanked rather than given ten days on a sticky PROD; and the material here, though probably partly fantasy, is not particularly discreditable, and indeed was probably added by the subject or a friend.

I don't want to edit war about this, and so have not restored the article, but I would like support for doing so. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is "probably largely hoax" then I would call that contentious. Anyone with a brain is not going to speedy an article with an active AfD on A7 grounds without checking either the history or the AfD itself for context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be kept as a stub. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems easy to resolve. Just put a hatnote at the top of the AFD nomination saying something like "This article was recently stubbed on WP:BLP grounds. You may wish to review the full version in the article history before commenting on this AFD, the link is here <insert link to full version in article history>" Exxolon (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent this afternoon tracking down five new academic sources to improve the National-Anarchism article. I would appreciate it if someone had a word to User:Loremaster about collaborative editing before I begin my update. I would like to see him listen to my arguments about phrasing, desist from immediately reverting complex changes, and stop archiving active threads on the talk page. Ottre 11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to laugh because this “incident” is not worth any administrator bothering with. Ottre, if you have a problem with me, let's discuss it on Talk:National-Anarchism page instead of trying to manipluate outsiders into helping you push your biased National-Anarchist POV into the article. --Loremaster (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster's history of sockpupperty and ban evasion (and lying about it to admins) is no joke. [34] --86.29.78.131 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside that it is unfair to bring up my history of regrettable acts (for which I have apologized for and never repeated since) that is unrelated to this current dispute, I NEVER lied to a Wikipedia administrator. That being said, your comments would be taken more seriously if you actually had the courage to write them with a registered user account... --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminstrators interested in sanctioning anyone should be aware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism, where Loremaster (and everyone else involved) worked dilligently to reach compromise and consensus. I haven't worked yet on figuring out this current dispute, but will spend some time right now to figure out what the problem is. I am confident that if all parties work together as was done before, this can be quickly and amicably resolved without the need for any tooluse. I suggest that the next passing admin shove a resolved tag up top. As former mediator - Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This piece from the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled "'National Anarchism': California Racists Claim They're Anarchists" might be a another useful source. It seems an obvious oversight considering that the SPLC is generally considered an expert source on far-right racist and white supremacist groups. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone how this edit by blocked User:Vote (X) for Change is possible? Is there a technical failure in the blocking system? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked user can still edit their talk page unless that has been specifically disabled. Sodam Yat (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I agree, there are no technical failures in the system. The administrator who blocked that user has not specified the option to prevent the user to edit his/her talk page. Heymid (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware of that feature. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Today I requested that the redirect "Dum Dum Diddle" be deleted per CSD G6, since I created a new version here. However, administrator Nyttend declined the speedy with the explanation here. The problem is that initially the "temp" page was dedicated to another article, "One Man, One Woman", which was previously restored by User:Juliancolton per my request. This is why the page history has to be separated before performing the move, and after the move, a history merge is required. I hope I managed to clarify the situation. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you explain that a bit more clearly? Fences&Windows 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I got a page protected (actually for the second time) because an anonymous IP user was edit warring, I have been the subject of extensive harassment by this user. They received a final warning by an administrator for their disruptive activities previously. The harassment ranges from repeatedly posting personal attacks on my talk page after requesting they not use my talk page for anything but article related discussions [35][36][37][38] to numerous false attacks on user talk pages in an attempt to some how poison the well. Really, this is at the limit for me. The user has been edit warring, their POV pushing has been pointed out by multiple editors who have in turn received the same personal attacks documented here.

The editor is currently using the IP 207.81.154.64 although I suspect it will again change when an editor gives them their next final warning. They have previously used 96.22.215.70 for much of their edit warring activities. --Ari (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1. Please note that the toxic material above has been falsified and it is important to check the talk page.
2. Here is where it is tricky. Ari has also falsified the Talk page many times. I keep restoring it.
3. The personal attacks and slurs against me are untrue. I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V last week. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without digging through the whole situation there is one thing you need to note. WP:UP#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings gives guidelines regarding user talk pages. If you leave a comment on someones talk page they are allowed to remove it. It's understood that this means they have read it. Restoring a comment that someone has removed from their talk page shouldn't be done barring a few very rare situations that I don't believe apply here.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Regardless of whether or not it is determined that there was harassment, the IP had a pretty blatant violation of 3RR (as indicated in the diffs above). Since he's posted on the 3RR noticeboard in the last day, he should be fully aware of the policy. Thus, I've blocked for 24 hours. --Smashville^talk 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of editors have for a while now been running delinking scripts across hundreds of pages on the project, which have the effect of removing internal wikilinks to terms that are described as "common". The cited justification is the wording of the wp:overlink guidelines, which does indeed suggest not linking terms that are common, but with a specific exception to that when they are relevant to the topic. The guideline of course does also stress navigability as being a key aim behind wikilinking. I first noticed this a couple of months back, when one of the editors stripped links to France from the article on French wine. Broadly I agree that there is probably too much redundant and trivial linking on articles and I would support most of the removals in most cases, but I have occasionally tried to raise the issue with those editors when I've noticed problems with the effects of these semi-automated removals. Very occasionally I and others have restored the odd link, often in turn to find that one of those editors comes back to remove it again.

Anyway, there does not seem to be any broad consensus for this "campaign" or for the running of scripts, or as to what terms would be seen as "common" or "well known" enough for links to them to be removed on each and every occasion they occur, regardless of context. There has been a lot of discussion on this (see my talk page, WT:LINK). Perhaps the wider issue is something that needs to go to an RfC, but in the short term there does seem to be a need for admin intervention. One editor, Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently ploughed through around 60 articles on Australian TV programmes, stripping out not only every link to Australia - which may or may not be a good thing - but also removing links to items in the Categories and See Also sections and hence messing up the format of the page, eg with this edit. I raised this on their talk page, pointing out the mistakes, here. They simply deleted my comment (their edit summary refers back to a previous talk page thread, where they had previously made light of genuine requests from both myself and another editor to be more careful and manually review the results of their script). They have since made no effort to correct their mutiple errors - instead one of the only two article edits they have made since then rather pointedly involved themheading off to a page they surely know I have on my watchlist, the Champagne article, to remove links, at least one of which I had previously restored some time ago.

The other reason that admin intervention of some sort is perhaps warranted is that we seem to be heading down a similar road to the one that ended up here over the delinking of dates, with many of the names involved oddly familiar. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the example you gave is characteristic, this is a total mess. Tony1 should stop until he can get proper consensus for this or at least exercise some common sense and double-checking on these script edits. The crusade against overlinking seems to be removing perfectly valid links (including category links) indiscriminately. Fences&Windows 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with the de-linking of common everyday words and places. I have not seen Tony1 de-link a word I think should be linked.  Giacomo  17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I don't have problems with most of the removals. There are, despite that, occasional issues about removing for example each and every link to France from pages about things from France - issues that several other editors have commented on over the past few months - but these are not the point either of my post here on ANI. The problem here, as noted in my post and the one example diff provided, is with removals that are manifestly wrong, and which muck up formatting and take pages out of categories, and then with an editor deleting and ignoring comments that bring it to their attention. If Tony won't sort out an obvious problem when I point it out to him - and then makes an edit to another page clearly designed to needle me - I'm going to go and ask for help. Our interactions to date have been largely friendly, albeit based on slightly heated disagreements at times (see my talk page), by the way - this is not a personal spat of any sort. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tony was never specifically sanctioned regarding future automated delinking? That would seem to have been an oversight if true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tony1 topic banned, an indef from guidelines on date linking, and via Tony1 restricted a 1-year ban from reverting said linking in articles. Curious timing that the latter expired only yesterday, though. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a whole bunch of his recent script-assisted edits -- while a couple of the ones I reverted were valid, the vast majority left non-links in the See Also sections or unlinked categories. Someone else might want to do a few more of these, as they're kind of messy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents... the delinking campaign causes these issues largely because of a dogged insistence on the part of the handful of editors doing the majority of delinking that their opinions are the only valid opinions, and that anyone who disagrees with them is just plain wrong, wants to link everything, and so on. (I'll freely admit that Tony and I have been at loggerheads over this for ages now, stemming back to his unilateral rewrite of the "What to link" and "What not to link" sections of the linking guideline in July 2008.) The reality is that while many people do agree with the notion that there is overlinking - multiple links to the same article, overly simplistic words linked, and so on - there is no established consensus regarding the use of these scripts, the haste with which the scripts are being used, and the insistence that non-linkworthy "common terms" include a wide range of cities, countries, major world events, religions and the like that Tony et al feel readers "should know". Moreover, the list of "common terms" is presented as nigh-on policy, but is actually not even easily accessible by other editors as it is buried in the depths of the delinking script. As I've said repeatedly, there is certainly merit in cleaning up the truly overlinked material. However, the problems we're facing are centred on the opinions driving this campaign, which has seen arguments that (for example) New York City is not a valid link in an article about that city's subway system, and that the article Canada does not warrant a single link to United States. Editors who disagree are told that the delinking is all about "improving the reader's experience", but are also told that readers who want to find these "common terms" are expected to use the search box instead of a link. Sadly, this is at its core yet another MoS-related dogfight, with much fervour on the part of the participants and little or no interest (or even awareness) from the community as a whole. We need to determine a consensus as to what the larger body wants, not just what the MoS gnomes feel like arguing over, and it should be resolved before the actions are taken on such a wide scale, not after. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair summary of the problem. We might need an RfC to sort this out, and Tony1 could be heading for a block for disruptive editing, or another sanction against using scripts. Fences&Windows 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC would probably be the best approach for a long-term resolution, and I personally would prefer to see some form of restriction on the use of the script; at the very least, the "common terms" list should be discussed and also made easily accessible for input and change by any editor. As for the idea of a block, even without the personal involvement I'd be reluctant to endorse such a move at this point in time as I think that Tony1 honestly feels he is doing the right thing. We do need to develop an understanding of how the larger community wishes to approach linking, instead of leaving it to the handful of editors who have the patience to sift through the guideline discussion pages. Hopefully, by adding more voices to the discussion, we can find common ground and move forward instead of the "all or nothing" approach currently in play. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Disclosure: I'm a pretty good Wikifriend of Tony, and I was a party in the date delinking Arbcom case) Tony has actually been running these scripts for some time now, and for the the substance of his edits has not been challenged by most editors. If you look through his recent talk page archives, most of the complaints about his link edits are of a technical nature (the removal of categories cited is an example of the glitches). It's fair to say Tony is rushing these edits somewhat, and needs to test the scripts first before using them on articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just woken up to this. I don't know why my last twiddle to the script started unlinking the odd category—I will fix the problem, technically. It's the first time this has ever occurred. The venom expressed above is part of a campaign by two users, CKatz and N-HH, at WP:LINK—put simply, they have tried over some time but have not a hope of gaining consensus to have the guideline changed so that every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion. CKatz, in particular, has been kicking up dust about once every six week—it's quite regular. No, Fences and Windows, what CKatz says here is far from "a fair summary", and you are way out of line talking about blocks. Get your facts right about "topic bans", Tarc and Chris Cunningham—you're patently wrong, and I expect retractions. And your accusation about "timing" is laughably irrelevant to those facts. Where did you get your information from? Please read it properly. SarekOfVulcan, why did you revert "valid" edits? That seems to show a herd mentality. Tony (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS And I had no clear idea from N-HH's post on my talk page yesterday that there was a technical glitch. It was a gigantic post, as usual, wrongly accusing me of edit-warring. I usually remove such posts from him and Ckatz. If the post had been a short paragraph with a diff to an example of the glitch, I'd have taken immediate action. But no, it was the usual diatribe. This page is turning into just what N-HH and Ckatz want: a diatribe—all over a glitch that can be fixed and, in repaired by me in the articles involved (almost all small, marginal and probably not often visited). Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's post above - "every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion" - is a perfect example of the misrepresentation used as a means of shutting down anyone who complains about the removal of wikilinks. With respect to the spurious claim listed above, N-HH and I are both on record as saying that is clearly not true, and Tony has repeatedly been asked to please stop misrepresenting opposing positions. I find it very frustrating that someone who is himself very quick to make accusations of incivility can be so incivil in this way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but here is my two cents anyway. Since WP is a globally accessed website, used by millions of users from grade school to Doctoral scholars and all in between with various levels of understanding of he english language I recommend caution when employing the term "Common terms". What is common to you or I may not be common at all to others and I for one find it rather handy to simply click on the link and be wisked away to the related article. To me the bother over do we link or not link is a 2 dimensional argument in a 3 dimensional Wikipedia. Can it be annoying to read through an article with sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything? My opinion is that it does not and in my opinion there are far better things to spend ones time with such as expanding the content of the thousands of stubs or creating some of the hundreds of articles that have been created. Anyway, thats all the comment I have and I will leave you to your discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=368249856 there was this uncontroversial-type move request:

  " User:Brandmeister → User:Nightbolt (move) — With talk, repeated log-in failure Nightbolt (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

  But a look at User talk:Brandmeister gets me wondering if this move request better be looked at first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd request. A userpage of a user with 12k edits to a user with only 5 edits? I think Brandmeister's account has been compromised, but I'm not sure. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is backlogged, could a couple admins take a look-see, please? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at this user's edits suggests they're not here to contribute positively at all, but what particularly drew my attention was their edits to User:Qotsa37, an editor who has not edited for a few days but whose page is on my watchlist. I guess the two may know each other. Draynah has provided a real name for Qotsa37 at least twice: here and here; should these revisions be deleted? I42 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that Qotsa37 has made at least one HOAX article, B.O.M.B. Fest. I checked out the bands that are coming to this "Fest" via their official websites....and one isn't touring at all and one isn't touring then. Hoax. I would recommend Qotsa37 be blocked for HOAX articles. Checking out Draynah. Checkuser might be a good idea too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the festival does exist, and at least some of the lineup is kosher (Of Montreal, Lupe Fiasco) - [39]. No sign of 30 Seconds to Mars, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Qotsa37 is pure Myspace. Considering deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another blantant hoax by Qotsa37. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and the hits just keep on coming. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Qotsa37 and User:Draynah pass the "same person" test to me. I recommend a checkuser to confirm, but these "two" seem to be the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...Bombfest 2010 appears to have already taken place. If it's a hoax, they went to a bit of effort. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User:Lilwhiterapper too. Seems to know Qotsa37. Will check on "Bomb Fest". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted the userpage and the subpages per NOT#MYSPACE. An SPI might be worthwhile on the various accounts but they could just be IRL friends. I've removed the speedy tag from B.O.M.B Fest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty certain they are just real-life friends. Their behavior seems to show that this is true. But we can let an SPI check this. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Number 57 has continuously edit warred on the Kadima article. He acknowledges that his edit lacks consensus and I and other editors have given him several opportunities to explain himself in Talk:Kadima. We have waited before returning to the sourced, agreed-upon version. He has not replied to editors in discussion who have deemed his argument faulty and chooses instead to edit-war.

I have asked for editor assistance on the matter per WP:dispute resolution. On several occasions, Number 57 appears to be wikistalking me. This is greatly disrupting my editing experience. He seems bent on smearing me personally. His actions demonstrate the intention of diverting attention away from Wikipedia policies and instead on tarnishing my credibility in the eyes of another editor. In the latest example, after I had asked another editor to intervene to provide assistance, Number 57 wrote on the talk page of User:JamesBWatson: " I suggest a quick browse of Shamir1's edit history and block log, amd involvement in disputes in many Israel-Palestinian-related spheres. I leave the rest up to you. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I can see this issue as no way other than a deliberate intent to smear me and attack me personally so as my honest efforts at dispute resolution would not be taken fairly or seriously. We must be treated credibly, and I believe Number 57's actions (edit-warring and personal smears of past non-related issues in an effort to influence a third party) are disrupting this harmony. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s block log it appears that s/he is subject to a topic ban. Is Kadima part of the topic? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toddst1. I have not edit-warred on Kadima. I explained my edit in talk and this has been supported by other editors in that article. Other editors in fact have also reverted Number 57's edits. I have been restrained and tried to avoid it. Number 57 has not explained his actions in the discussion page. Editors are waiting for a response from him.

Although I have edit-warred in the past, this was on one specific article as I was accused by one specific editor who himself had edit-warred too. This is a separate and complex issue that I dealt with for a long time and still am dealing with. This should not tarnish my honest efforts at dispute resolution for an article in which my edits are supported by a majority and I do not believe to have edit-warred. I have learned my lesson from the past and have been editing responsibly. I am focusing on Wikipedia policy and am opposed to being smeared by another editor. Thank you.--Shamir1 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Never mind - I found it here and Shamir1 is in violation of condition 2 of the unblock and is now indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, do you have any evidence that what Shamir1 is doing is actually edit warring? I only find two edits, separated by five days, to that page in his last 50 contributions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: [40] [41] [42] [43] constitutes "edit-warring or ownership of articles especially returning periodically to revert to a preferred version." I'll gladly defer to the WP:ARBCOM#BASC since they've apparently dealt with this user on this behavior before. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Cnrail37592114 is using a script to create articles such as Yujiazhuang Railway Station. I was doing newpage patrol, and cleaned up a couple, but then looked on the talk page and realized the user has admitted to using a script to automatedly create all of the articles. I'm not sure exactly what actions (if any) need to be taken, but I'm not sure if it is good to have a user mass producing articles with a script without approval. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unapproved bots/scripts are forbidden anyway (obviously), but any article creation is entirely prohibited regardless. Since the articles are there, they're there and need normal deletion channels if you'd like to make a case for that. Would need to check with the railroads project to see what their precedent is on station articles but something seems a bit fishy (I'm reminded of the state highways mess of years past). ...If the creation and/or editing is ongoing, I'd (sadly) have to suggest an admin indef block until there can be some level of communication with the user and the articles looked over. Sorry I can't personally be of any more help. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocked as a sockpuppet of Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs), previously blocked per this discussion, articles nuked. T. Canens (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that article creation is entirely prohibited? We've permitted content creation bots in the past. Or do you mean that unapproved content creation bots are even worse than other unapproved bots? Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, User:Rovington has contributed significant amounts of text and many images. After becoming miffed that we're not permitting him to require his own preferred method of attribution on top of the "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." statement below the editing window, he's announced that he's revoked cc-by-sa-3.0 and that his contributions — even PD-art and other PD-old images — are now copyvios. I have three questions:

1. Is it appropriate for me (or any other admin) to restore all of his recent contributions that have been deleted, without asking permission of deleting admins? He tagged many images with db-author that have since been deleted; I assume that the deleting admins didn't realise that the tag was a bad-faith attempt to revoke licensing. In particular, Explicit deleted a large number of them; I've asked his permission to restore the ones he deleted.
2. The link that I gave above to his announcement includes the addition of the address of his attorney. Should we take this as a legal threat?
3. On the technical side, Rovington tagged many articles with {{db-filecopyvio}}. Would it be possible to add code to this template so that it knows when it's placed on a page that's not in the file namespace? We currently employ such code on {{prod}}, because it's able to tell when it's not on an article.

Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but it seems to me that his including of his attorney's address is not a legal threat, since he is not threatening any legal action at the moment and presumably just telling us that this counsel advised him to withdraw his material. Regarding the other issues, I would restore his article space material, and block him after a warning if he continues to remove it or be disruptive in other ways. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go legal threat on him, but there is no question that you can't revoke permission this way, and that he needs explaining that removing contents is vandalism even if he's the one who put it there originally. Restoring it (if it has value) is SOP. — Coren ^(talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides notifying him of the ANI post, I've told him that the licenses aren't revocable, and I've included a link to the CC website's FAQ page that discusses nonrevocability. Just curious, though: what's "SOP"? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for starting this discussion. I'd been saving notes to do the same. From my perspective, he's extremely confused about copyrights and attribution. Perhaps he actually has gotten some (bad) legal advise as well. Maybe it's simply a WP:OWN problem. Regardless, I've been trying to salvage article content that he cannot claim is his own, keeping him informed on his talk page. If he's made as many errors requesting file deletions as he has with article deletions, then I think they should all be restored and reviewed. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's requested the deletion of tons of PD-old images; as far as I know, the only ones that have been saved are File:Rivington Little Lake Distr.jpg and File:Rivington c1780.jpg, and that's only because I came upon them while deleting images and moved them to Commons (the former file is now File:Lakes in Rivington.jpg). Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Sockfarm Stauner/Irvine22

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22/Archive

• Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Dreary Steeples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Is this ducklike enough for a block, or need we go through with another SPI report? Neutral admin opinions please. --John (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]