Psikxas (talk · contribs) has for the past six weeks or so been persistently trying to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable headlight bulb company called Kärheim. His initial attempt was a mainspace article, Karheim, which was speedy deleted for violation of NOTE and SOAP (with great difficulty; Psikxas & socks repeatedly removed SD notice — see SPI). Deleted article retrieved and moved by admin Jayron32 at Psikxas' request to his userspace. I objected at that time; no consensus for removal was reached. Psikxas moved the article text to his main userpage, which is its present location. Retrieving admin reiterated RS, CORP, and NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here.

Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas (where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).

Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as LAZER helmet (request for reinstatement here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned User_talk:Jayron32#Plagiarism.

I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university Aristotle_University? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.

Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.

As far the LAZER helmet you mention, again lying!! Didnt the article reported restored or not??See there my reply here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[1]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt? (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that "report" at [2] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. can you tell us, which is this 'different' brand? try to respect at least, if you dont respect me cause you dont know me of course, the whole academic society. If something is posted in auth.gr, what you would say? Does it belong to one of its members or not? anyone.

pls, with a simple google search, look what you can find from this domain, something very common in universities all over the world, they use their domain to upload ([3] :

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10] Every university has the control of its members, can we judge and conclude something different?

please review the WHOLE conv between me and the admin. Take the time. Maybe, have you seen this ? Consider with google search how many times this admin promotes other brand in many forums, consider how insane he became when it proved that he was wrong by Miscellany for deletionof the article, imagine why he tries by all means to take revenge. Why?

Try to find everything and then judge. Review some links i posted here, review the department of electrical engineering (by the way, how you concluded that the university has nothing to do with it?) What you think is better? Knowing nothing, or know the half truth and then judge? Maybe admin is true i dont use my english very well, but this is for or against because i cant defend they way i could? Someone else here though uses bery well the language, and easily could spread the half truth, isnt?

At the time, i marked my article that its under investigation. In the past, i stopped my contribution. This bad admin will not stop, if he could, he would have banned me already. Is this a coincidence that an article restored after deletion and stayed intact more than 2 weeks, that was marked for deletion AGAIN User_talk:Psikxas few minutes after the admin here started this issue? Of course, nothing happened...but this avoid me to offer in wikipedia, and the impression givven is that i only cause troubles. because of one only article, because of infos everyone can find by googling —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

• Oh, just to add..try not to believe anything they say to you. Because someone told "its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it)" ..have you checked both dates? where this admin refers too? cant you see that submission date is different?? a full year! not few days! year! Anyway...ill wait for some serious reply, not from someone so credulous pls...Psikxas (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek editor needed

From section Methods of the original paper [11]:

The HID system employed a Philips DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3. (my bold)

From section Methods of the plagiarised paper [12]:

The HID system employed a DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3.

The plagiarised paper does not show an author but claims to be from "Lighting Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki". (This is strange, because the Lighting Laboratory is at National Technical University of Athens. [13].) It consists of:

• A new abstract replacing the original on. It says:

  An experimental field investigation is described below, based on a study of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001 that compared the off-axis visual performance of HID forward lighting systems with comparable halogen systems to determine the relative visual effects of HID lighting. [...] In this study three high quality current production European headlamp systems, Kärheim HID and two Philips halogen, are compared. (my bold)

• An almost exact copy of the plagiarised paper. The only difference that I have seen is the omission of Philips (see above) in a context where we would expect to read Kärheim if the original study had had the claimed scope of the plagiarised study.
• A sequence of slides added at the end. These are a variant of the conference slides presented by Constantinos A. Bouroussis and Frangiskos V. Topalis at the Balkan Light 2008 conference in Lubljana. [14]

I do not know if Scheinwerfermann got the date stamp of this file [15] wrong, as Psikxas claims. It currently says 13-Jun-2008 00:12, which is 1 year + 22 hours before Psikxas' edit [16] pointing to the document. I do know that it is trivial to change time stamps on Unix-based web servers such as this one. And I do observe that the creation time of the PDF file itself, which would be a bit harder to fake, is 18 June 2008, i.e. 5 days after this document was supposedly put on the web server.

Add to this Psikxas' very first edit [17] and it looks like a case for the relevant research institution's fraud department. Perhaps a Greek editor can contact the admin of of http://users.auth.gr ? The next question is whether we should notify Kärheim, Philips, or both. --Hans Adler 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, incidentally, that the fake report from the alleged (but apparently non-existent) Photometry Lab in Thessaloniki has also stolen the logo of the real Photometry Lab in Athens. The authors of the 2008 conference paper you mention above are apparently well-established researchers at the genuine Athens lab. – Personally, I don't much feel like bothering to mess with the real-life dimension here, fraud department and whatnot; let's just get rid of the disruptive editor, salt the pages and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the account at AUTH has been suspended, perhaps in response to notification sent to that school's administration regarding the fraud. It also appears Psikxas has blanked his/her user page, blanked his/her user talk page, and blanked the Kärheim subpage, but continues to edit disruptively and complain about administrative correction of his/her disruptive edits. I see/hear more quacking in Psikxas' apparently keen interest in presenting a particular point of view on a political matter involving Macedonia. Generally matters of this nature are a hot topic in Greece, and nowhere else. Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, but it does wiggle its eyebrows and go "Psst! Psst! Look over there!". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psst psst! Scheinwerfermann! Its true that university decided to suspend the account, but perhaps after the investigation(?), they decided to keep it as it is. Of course everything is as before with the PDF, the page etc. What made me delete my pages, was that after what Fut.Perf. told here, once i thought that we should consider maybe that server keeps track of the very first upload (really, Fut.Perf. you that always give examples, can you create for us now an example of how "time stamps on Unix-based web servers" can change? Personally, i think its impossible if you are not the admin, if you can tell us how else, okay then, but i bet you cant, and you wrote it just to create impressions) , but then believed that i cant trust whatever i find in google and maybe i shouldnt insist, maybe im wrong. Now that university decided to keep it, i dont know what to do. I would be silly if i thought that admins can not find how articles were before, eh? If you can find previous revisions through "history", then anyone can do it ! Anyway, if your only interest here and contribution is to keep tracks of what i do, if this doesnt show your vendetta , if my last contribution has anything to do with my article we are discussing here, at least work and correct my articles with my poor english, or else another admin should ask you STOP now from the revenge you are mad to find all this time!Psikxas (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barefaced alteration of a published paper to support promotion of a company's product. What the university does is its own lookout. What we do is ours. Block and salt. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK…what now? I'm not too tickled at the barrage of incivility from psikxas, but I'm not inclined to do anything about it. I'd like to move on to more productive things; can we get that block and salt rolling, please? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Psikxas can explain how a reference to a fabricated document wound up in his Karheim draft article, I'd allow one more appeal. But the case as it stands looks solid enough to justify an indefinite block of User:Psikxas. His protests above seem illogical, and don't seem to be responses to the actual problem. (I changed the section header above to remove the word 'criminal', since WP:TALK requires headers to be neutral). EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston,this admin had accused me in the past that i own these companies, such as German Karheim or Belgium Lazer helmets, but what you think, if i owned these or any other company, i would have time to write here maybe? The most confussing part for me was that i found articles didnt have any references at all like Shoei, but they were on wikipedia. As time passed, i understood what references i need though, i searched for them in Google, i added them in my Lazer helmet article, and it has been restored. Although this admin tried to force Jayron32 block me and delete me from the beginning, Jayron32 restored this article in my userspace instead of deleting it, till i find references. I searched one day in Google too for Karheim and references, found this pdf, and added it, then asked Jayron32 about his opinion. Anyone who needs refference, make a search. What some others accused me also, that i hacked the server?? i changed time..dont know and cant understand why they want to present me us unreliable because im Greek?!? even that im involved in the university or that the university is not notable??...Anyway, the admin told us that he has sent email to auth.gr, and i think he got his response because auth restored the article. Bad, why he doesnt tell us the response he got from the university? This bad admin although, its obvious of what he cares only and how he wants to use his power. Isnt it a matter that because obviously he promotes other brands,- he tried to fool the community in order to hurry this process by adding some lies with some evidence of truth-this section here could be also for talking about misuse of admin powers?- he used his admin power against me because of his vendetta too? Psikxas (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still unresolved

I have no interest in hounding Psikxas to the ends of the earth (or the ends of Wikipedia), but we have apparent consensus without any follow-through here. Why? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread started on 16 June and is still waiting for a decision. I'm issuing an indefinite block, based on my statement above: If Psikxas can explain how a reference to a fabricated document wound up in his Karheim draft article, I'd allow one more appeal. But the case as it stands looks solid enough to justify an indefinite block of User:Psikxas.

I found Psikxas' response hard to take seriously after reading the other evidence. He just *happened* to come upon an authorless document that helps support the value of Karheim's products that *happens* to be falsified. The document is located in a web hosting directory at the Aristotle University, but Google cannot find a reference to it anywhere on the web except here on Wikipedia, reached through a link in Psikxas' draft article. How do you suppose he knew where to find the document, if he did not create it himself, or unless he knew the creator? Although Psikxas has blanked his talk page, the best exposition of his side of the case is probably found at this link. Here is the beginning of Psikxas' response to a highly specific charge of plagiarism:

*Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned.

Did he understand what he was saying? He is saying there is *nothing wrong* with the document he's using, one that we consider falsified. He is not even going to the bother of denying that he created the document. You may be able to see why I didn't find his answer convincing. Review of my action by other admins is invited. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Endorse the block, without any joy in doing so. I have spent the better part of the past few months mentoring Psikxas, with the intent of introducing him to Wikipedia policy, and helping him to see how his company was not really notable. The excellent analysis presented here of his pushing of the obviously forged document seems beyond help. I am sorry I spent the time mentoring and working with this user, if what they were going to do was to use a forged study to somehow sneak their article in the back door. Not to mention that it was probably futile anyways, after skimming the study in question, it seemed clear that it did not really go towards establishing notability anyways. Ah, c'est la vie... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review this chaps contributions? I fear they might be up to no good. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of weird. A lot of their edits seem to check out on Google (Neil Phillips addition to Minder/A Touch of Frost, for example), but then there's that one above, and another I came across and reverted. We'd better keep checking.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look, Sarek. I agree that many of the edits seem to be kosher.  Skomorokh  12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a "fact tag" keep getting reverted? I added a fact tag to Saint George and I do want to avoid an edit war or a e revert situation - I issued a warning. Can someone give an opinion please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you had provided a warning which was removed by B'er. I was in the process of adding that you are both edit-warring, whether or not you reach 3RR, which I have in fact re-added to his talkpage - you're warned as well. B'er was also warned to stick to WP:RS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have advised the editor of this thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully have to say: No, not at all. I have added a fact tag for Heaven's sake and ONLY done 2 reverts. Since when is that an edit war? This is not really a content dispute but a quality issue. If you allow fact tags to be removed Wikipedia starts to get "junk content". I have no issue with correct statements in Wikipedia, but fact tags are absolutely needed to maintain quality. Their removal must be an absolute no-no. Or is quality a secondary issue in Wikipedia now? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'er Rabbits' responses require action

It may be time for an "enforced retirement". This scathing diatribe, albeit by a logged-out IP editor (that I'm sure someone can confirm is the user) shows someone unwilling to work within Wikipedia's policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has now again logged in and edited the IP post[18], I think it is safe to conclude that they are definitely the same. I don't care him or her being pissed off with me, but the posts I linked to on his talk page are personal attacks against two other editors, and one of them on an unrelated page, so it's not an isolated incident. Fram (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has also on-[19] and offwiki[20] canvassed for support in an AfD. Fram (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add that, as someone who has had earlier contact with this extremely pleasant editor :), that the comments on his talk page are way over the top. I'd say it would probably be reasonable to block the account and IP, the latter at least temporarily, because of the comments there. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having said what I did above, the editor hasn't seemed to edit since announcing his retirement. I think we would have to AGF that he meant he would retire until he proves otherwise. Maybe we should let it go until either the IP or the account gets used again by that party? John Carter (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GranvilleHouston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding the surname of this child, unsourced or poorly-sourced and apparently against consensus. He appears to be on some kind of crusade to have this name included. Since I have expressed an opinion on content, I bring this here for fresh minds to tackle this issue. Rodhullandemu 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all know his name anyway since it's all over the Internet, he deserves the dignity of at least being accorded a proper name. This is not a UK-based site so there is no reason at all not to name him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• I've no objection in theory, though I think the addition is unnecessary and tacky. A decent reference would be essential - I've just reverted the addition of a reference from a site that proclaims "The Daily Squib is a curious satirical publication and should therefore be taken fu**ing seriously ;)" - to be fair that's at the bottom of the page, so it's maybe not as obvious as, say, The Onion, that it's satire... Incidentally, I'm UK-based and I guess I don't fall into the "we all know..." category since I tend to get my news from TV, radio, and those newspapers I can buy at my local Co-op ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We do have precedent for names of minors unreleased because they are minors: Nevada-tan. The argument in the RfD was that, often, (fairly) reputable news sources will respect the legal system and not disclose names, which leaves the ones that do to be unreliable and unusable. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments:
  1. The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts; whilst they may be slow, they are not capricious and if they believe that publishing the name is not appropriate then I see no reason why we should doubt their judgment, even if non-UK editors have no legal obligation to follow it.
  2. Contrary to some of the vile nonsense on the talk page, BLP applies to everyone equally - guilty, innocent and victim alike.
  3. I am inclined to indefinitely block rather than debate with editors who advocate for the murder of the guilty and then pursue a campaign to include court suppressed names in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order: while BLP applies to everyone equally in theory, you'll get more praise for vigorously applying BLP on a barely-known person than a really famous person. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe anyway and executing child murderers is not murder. There are NO reasons at all not to name the murdered child and the murderers, it must be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive, tendentious editing. Tan | 39 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The child has siblings, and there are apparently other pending court cases against the parents, these two factors resulting in a UK order to suppress the name. Oversight has been dealing with this repeatedly; I originally questioned the rationale for this (as Wikipedia is not UK based) but the other factors are sufficient to convince me to at least leave the decision in the hands of other smart people. The general consensus on oversight-L is that it is acceptable to suppress this information, at least for now. Thatcher 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that- thanks. Perhaps I should send recent diffs to be oversighted, or is this already in hand? Rodhullandemu 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been at this article for a while now, and since it seems to have spilled over here, I have a few remarks.
  1. Despite GranvilleHouston's pugnacious attitude, he raises several valid points. We do have a policy that Wikipedia is not censored, which has been blithely ignored in this matter. By no precedent which any have raised has WP:BLP extended to the censorship of the names of adult criminal suspects, much less convicted perpetrators.
  2. I previously agreed not to strongly contest this matter while jury proceedings were ongoing. That is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer the case.
  3. Peter does have siblings (one of whom is a rape victim), which is the current sole remaining WP:BLP rationale for restricting his last name. However, this argument is being made in a vacumn. It seems unimaginable to me that, after a case of this degree of publicity and magnitude, that the siblings' name would not be changed. Furthermore, the last name at issue here is a common one, and its power of identification without a first name is insignificant. Without putting out forbidden information, let's just say that it's more common than Thatcher and less common than Sheridan.
  4. Wikipedia should not, indeed cannot if it is to remain true to its mission, get into the business of deferring, sight unseen, to the logic of courts which do not have authority over it. I trust the current business in Iran, and frequent cases in China, provide ample reason why. We can only reason on the information given to us, which is thus far grossly lacking in details about practices, and seems to reflect a "censor in deference to the courts" attitude. Ray^Talk 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd agree, based on CIreland and Sceptre's points, that the name shouldn't be disclosed at the moment. I think that GranvilleHouston's last point undermined his credibility quite nicely (The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe? What tosh. We don't have a single European court in the English legal system). I appreciate Ray's argument, however, and I'd be quite happy to support inclusion if a reliable source can be found. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources are the key. I recall a case awhile back, where a couple of paroled murderers had somehow swung a deal to allow them to "restart their lives", and there was a brouhaha about wikipedia carrying their names. However, reliable sources had the names, so the BLP argument failed. Similarly here - if reliable sources have the info, and if those sources have not been enjoined from publishing that info, then there is no reason wikipedia can't publish also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources aren't the problem here. [21], [22], [23], [24] (not English), [25] have all been posted to the talk page in the past. Ray^Talk 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, if the courts have enjoined the media from publishing the names, then in theory the media don't have the right to publish the names. So how are they getting away with it? Or did the court issue an order that it had no right to issue, and is thus leaving such publication unchallenged? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, presumably the BLP issue is about identifying the parents, right? BLP obviously would not apply to the dead, unless it would compromise BLP rules for the living. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the BLP "issue" is about identifying Peter's unnamed sister. Custom and common sense is that convicted criminals do not enjoy the right not to be named. Ray^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Convicted criminals do enjoy the same protections under our BLP policy as everyone else, Ray, no matter how terrible their crimes. CIreland (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. They have the same rights, including the inalienable and mandatory exercise of the right to be named if they commit a serious crime that is relevant and encyclopedic to report :) Ray^Talk 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec)The court placed an order that the mother's and her boyfriend's name not be disclosed; this isn't for the sake of them, but because the mother has other minor children, and the court felt they would be harmed by the inevitable exposure. The court didn't make a similar order against the third adult involved in the case, because he wasn't a member of the family (and, their reasoning went, this wouldn't lead to the children being identified). This Newsweek story goes in to more detail, and it answers Bugs' question - those that have published are risking prosecution, but many internet sources have, so they're going on the theory that there's so many that they won't. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should make these decisions based on our own policies. Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own policies include taking into account the opinions of those more fully acquainted with the facts and with greater experience of dealing with such issues. For example, the UK courts. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue here isn't a legal one (something the courts would be experienced in) but an encyclopedic one. Unless you want to call up David Eady the opinion of the courts is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to the case of the two paroled murderers that I was talking about earlier, this involves protecting the innocent. Sounds to me like wikipedia should not be in position of putting the kids at risk, if in fact that is a legitimate concern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says that? As far as I know, the policy here is that legal issues are the domain of the Foundation and unless Mike Godwin tells us to do something, we should simply continue to follow our own guidelines without trying to worry about the opinions of various courts around the world. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, legal issues aside, the question is do we really want to come over as a bunch of insensitive pricks over the death of a child? Does the name's inclusion, right now this instant, add anything to the value of the article that we can't possibly live without? It strikes me that, just because we can do something under cover of our policies, it doesn't mean we should. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This. //roux   18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the dead child, by itself, has nothing to do with BLP, as the child is dead. The parents do not warrant censorship either. But the innocent children do, if in fact they could be at risk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though I was trying to avoid the 'c' word ;) I think this is one of those situations where common-sense can usefully be applied for now, until the whole issue becomes moot when (presumably) the other children are resettled under new names and the reporting restrictions lifted. EyeSerene^talk 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If it didn't matter, the courts would permit the release of the name. While the court's decision may be predicated on matters unrelated to our own WP:BLP's concerns which may moreover have been made moot by the apparent non-mainstream release of such information, that doesn't mean we should necessarily go against such a media blackout.

Furthermore, WP:DEADLINE people; there isn't one. This is a common problem with articles on developing events, and while it's made all the more controversial by the distasteful nature of those events, I don't see any compelling reason to treat it any differently than another article on a current event. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of this opinion that this falls under the "do no harm" principle and "presumption in favour of privacy" principle. When we are talking about minors we MUST be extremely cautious and prudent. Better to omit information than potentially cause harm. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Chunky Rice's " Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here." As internet nerds, we're surely better placed than anyone to make such judgements. I propose we form a Council of Brights, chosen from those wikipedians whose World of Warcraft characters have the highest INT scores, and have them decide such matters. I'd trust their judgement over any mere court. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if I call Granville a little shit if I will be capriciously blocked for 3 hours without attempt at discussion? Just wondering, mind you. Not actually doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not relevant to this discussion. And yes, if you do call an editor that expect to be blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks. Exxolon (talk)
    • Clearly, you are clueless as to the incident to which I refer, as well as to the point which I am making. This comment was not intended for you, I assure you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'd done a little more research, you'd know I'm fully aware of the incident you're referring to for a very good reason. Let me reiterate - the rights or wrongs of that incident are irrelevant to this discussion and debate should probably be continued elsewhere, however using that kind of language about other editors is clearly a blockable violation of WP:NPA - this is a serious project demanding a certain minimum standard of behaviour which that kind of act falls well short of. If we're not sanctioning editors who use that kind of language we definitely should be. Calling me 'clueless' isn't particularly civil either and in posting to this public noticeboard you're inviting a reponse from any editor, not just the one(s) you were attempting to get a reaction from. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I stand corrected - you are aware, therefore being deliberately obtuse rather than innocently clueless. Thank you for clarifying your position. I am done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Obtuse' now - again not very civil. Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • KillerChihuahua, Exxolon, this thread has gone from a silly joke to a disruptive squabble, that has no bearing on any actual issue for administrators. Please both immediately WP:DISENGAGE from this daft pissing contest; it's conduct unbecoming of you both. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was already done, see the "I am done" in the message above? Feel free to chastise others who have already ceased behaviors which bother you, though, if it makes you feel better. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

87.115.17.11 you are correct - I'm moving ongoing issues to KillerChihuahua's talkpage and will try and resolve them there instead. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the oversighters involved in this, I have been waiting for some current reliable source to stick their neck out and include the name. We should not be the first. Barely a day goes by without new news articles going to print, and yet news sources across the globe are choosing to not include the names. We should follow their lead. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whereas the order issued by the UK courts applies only to UK newspapers, and not UK websites, and many of the UK newspaper website items cited above predate that order, the bottom line, as as I see it, is that when WP:BLP issues arise, it is our duty to minimise harm, not only to those mentioned within our pages, but also to those who might be identifiable through what is published here. That's an issue of our responsibility as opposed to reporting what we might; the truth might well be a virtuous motive, but we are not investigative journalists, nor are we scandal-mongers, especially in the context of editors whose only apparent motivation in this context is bloodthirsty and ill-considered revenge. The two-year old girl who was raped deserves better than that reaction. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it lacks WP:RS on a BLP, that is one thing. If a reasonably-sized consensus supports suppression of the info per WP:BLP, that's another thing (though I would consider such a decision to be incompatible with the text of WP:CENSOR. But, not to put too fine a point on it, I'll eat my damned hat before I see EnWiki supporting automatic knee-jerk obedience to the laws of any foreign country, including Britain, based solely upon somebody's unofficial Euro-centric "interpretation". For the hundreth time: Wikipedia exists in the US and has a full-time lawyer whose job description is to "supervise [Wikipedia's] legal policy". If some questionable issue arises with the British legal system, its his job to determine whether or not we are obligated to make any changes. That's why he gets paid. For the record, he has previously stated many times that we don't answer to them. CIreland: your statement that "The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts" shows a fundamental disconnect with WP:CENSOR and a (thankfully rare) misconception as to what Wikipedia is not. You argue about second guessing the UK courts; how about not second-guessing the Project's lawyer, first? Or would you rather simply fire him and make all our legal decisions based on whatever Euro-centric viewpoint you come up with? Bullzeye ^contribs 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That kiss-up-to-authority-they-know-what's-best viewpoint was also attempted with the murder case I was talking about earlier, and was defeated. That vaguely fascistic mindset is scary, frankly. In this case, supposedly there are kids to protect, so BLP actually does come into play, assuming that the kids could be harmed if their parents' names were publicized. This is a little different from O.J. Simpson, a very-public figure whose kids were already well-known, so there was no protecting them this way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "think of the children" helps in this case, BLP also protects adults, including criminals, and the main reason why BLP comes into play is that no reliable source has yet knowingly printed the names after the court order. If the news had died down, it would be appropriate for us to make our own decisions in this matter, however every day new articles go to print ... without the names. This is a conscious choice by reliable sources to not include the names, so I view naming them on Wikipedia as ignoring the decision by reliable sources to not name the people. Once the papers start breaking the court ruling, we can follow their lead because we can reference them. Or if a reliable source reports that the court restrictions have been lifted, then we know - otherwise we are just guessing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "scary, frankly", Baseball Bugs is that when weighing the opinion of people who work daily with such issues and who are in full possession of the facts against the opinion of a bunch of amateurs (myself obviously included) with limited access to any details, you would defer to the latter. You may choose to describe giving more weight to the opinions of those with obvious expertise as "fascistic"; I, however, would prefer the adjective "adult" to describe the recognition of our own limitations.

Bullzeye, I don't understand what you mean by "Euro-centric viewpoint" - the issue is about knowledge and expertise, how is location relevant? And whilst the foundation lawyer may be well placed to determine what we can (legally) do, he has, so far as I am aware, no special qualifications that to advise on what we ought to do; just because we could, it does not mean that we should. If WP:CENSOR starts being used to justify "whatever we can get away with" then either it or WP:BLP has to go. CIreland (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a UK court has more "knowledge and expertise" with our BLP policy that we do? I find that hard to believe. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the "Euro-centric" view, but what I'm seeing in some editors here is the same as with the previous case, that we the citizens should kiss up to authority. Maybe that's how they are used to doing things in mainland Europe, but not so much here in the USA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIreland: To answer your question re: "Euro-centric", I would be less offended by this nonsense if it wasn't such a prevalent manner of thinking amongst certain members of our European editor set. Unfortunately, there has been repeated issues with UK editors attempting to boldly enforce their personal lay interpretations of UK censorship law on the US based English Wikipedia without any prompting from Mike Godwin. The Roger Took case and the Virgin Killer fiasco both featured heavy lobbying from European editors who felt ("as a courtesy") we should simply knuckle under any time the UK decides they want to censor EnWP. If a US judge cut an order demanding censorship of a UK-based Internet publication, he would immediately (and rightly) be given a tall middle finger from the other side of the pond. I am baffled why anyone would think EnWP should voluntarily act otherwise. Pretty sure there's a reason why US citizens aren't legally obligated to bow to the Queen. Bullzeye ^contribs 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Local Authorities have been contacted-03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All gone.

There is a huge backlog at the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. This may require one or two admins to clean up.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a back log per se, but just the most recent dump from our most diligent spam eradicator. –xeno^talk 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he does seem to be on a roll. Call it what you will, there are a lot of reports to be taken care of.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, I just think giving admins at least an hour to act on it before raising the backlog flag might be a good idea. =) –xeno^talk 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. That was a mess. Shereth 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking - did reporting editors talk to the potentially offending username owning editors before going to UAA? An editor called ABBenson editing ABBenson_Management has a spam username (not allowed?) and a COI, but one sympathetic editor letting them know this, and explaining COI, is better than 3 or 4 people jumping on with various levels of warnings straight away. Of course, the first instance the editor shows of ignoring the gentle approach it should e removed and they can cope with the sticks. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, Calton does not typically discuss with users much, just reports them en masse. –xeno^talk 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than it used to be. At least all of the recent batch were active in the past few weeks. There was a time when he used to report 2- and 3- year old accounts with one edit to UAA to be blocked, even if they had stopped editing for 2 or 3 years. I have no problem with blocking active spammers, but digging out old, inactive accounts for reporting seems like a waste of admins time to me. I reviewed several of these myself, and some were quite borderline, as many had gone past the point of being "active" (two edits three weeks ago is hardly "active") and so likely did not pose the iminent threat required of a preventative block as spelled out at WP:BLOCK. We can at least say that "his heart is in the right place", but this is not a new development. Admins that patrol UAA are used to this by now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Enigmaman has been abusing his position as an admin. On this page: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_in_metal I have been formatting in what I feel is a better manner. If he, or any other user, disagrees then they are quite welcome to discuss it with me, but no attempt to do so has been made.

Instead, he and Wiki Libs have been consistently reverting me, giving no explanation as to why. I'm not removing any sources or inserting any new information: I'm literally just formatting. Then, just now, Enigmaman reverts again and locks the page for A WEEK.

This is yet another example of wikipedia admins abusing their positions. Yeah, yeah, I can hear it already: "But you were edit warring, he did the right thing." Wrong. Page locking is not there so an admin can selfishly and arrogantly lock a page in a format they like best. If either of them feels there is a problem, they can contact me, or use the talk page, or just put something in their edit summaries. Instead, they've simply been undoing over and again, giving no explanation for their actions, while I have repeatedly said why I am doing what I am doing.

This is misuse of the locking function. I know of course that nothing will be done about it, because on wikipedia nothing ever is. Admins abuse their powers every day, and nothing is ever done about it. But hey, you never know, there's always the chance a random sensible person like myself will see this and take some hope from it. 86.129.199.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

You have to discuss if people don't like your "bright idea" – edit-warring will lead to page protection, and is not allowed. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the IPs' edits are actually vandalism or there's something else I'm missing, I think this is a kind of sketchy use of WP:SEMI as Wiki libs is definitely autoconfirmed. It would also seem there are a lot of article being affected by this user, and it seems definitely related to Talk:1960s in heavy metal music#Semi again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looking into this some, I have a few comments: 1) The IP has a dynamic IP and at least one of which was contacted and warned. 2) The IP's edits are on numerous pages and they are all being reverted. I don't necessarily think the IP is wrong in his edits, but would encourage the IP to discuss them. It is clear from the number of pages/editors involved that the IP's change does not (yet) have broader community support on making these changes. Is a week reasonable? I personally wouldn't have protected for that long, but I do think this edit should be discussed as it is obviously not shared by others.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your query Balloonman... the main page the IP is warring over (the 1960s page) was already protected before for a week by Sir Scarian.. and then again for a month by WilliamConnelly. The IP sock continued his war (even declaring on the talk page a few days before the prot ran out that he intended to continue his war) so the page should have been protected for an even longer period. Through his edit war he has continued to ignore the fact the the page history and the talk page discussion all show a clear consensus to keep the content which he keeps blanking. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never touched any of these articles before, so I semiprotected the rest of the 70s for a week as well. If an agreement is reached, either unprotect or let me know so I can.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, Enigmaman reverted to his preferred version in a content dispute, and then used semi protection to lock out IPs (one person in particular) from the edit war. So, basically he violated the protect policy twice: protecting his preferred version, and using semi to block out IPs when autoconfirmed editors are also warring. ÷seresin 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that way to me. Tan | 39 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above that should clear your mud. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun that your signature says "speak politely", and you are anything but. Please let this discussion/investigation continue without your sarcasm, snark, or pithy comments. Tan | 39 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is not snarky, sarcastic or pithy. Previous comments showed that a few users were unfamiliar with the situation and I left a helpful comment to help them out. They were meant to be 100% helpful to everyone who is commenting based on this little puddle IP here and not knowing the whole sh-bang. I could have put a happy smiley at the end of my sentence if that would've helped. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I must have misinterpreted your intent on that comment. I apologize, and withdraw the admonishment. Sorry about that. Tan | 39 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a good idea to pithy-offy the people who might just help you... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - protection may have been technically the correct action (possibly) but to avoid any appearance of impropiety should've been brought to the attention of an uninvolved admin to administer. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually E_man was an uninvolved admin. He only stepped in to assist in an obvious/ongoing IP war when it was brought to his attention. Looking at the page edit history it looks, at first, like a back-n-forth between 2 IP users. In fact it is an ongoing battle between 1 solo IP sock and a whole series of IPs that originate from numerous locales (if my geolocate is working correctly) The Real Libs-speak politely 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that he didn't step in to block edit-warring users or fully protect an edit-war-torn page; he reverted the IP and then semi-protected the page. As the IP edits were not blatant vandalism, I really can't see how this admin action was justified. Tan | 39 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a user has been blocked from editing and chooses to use an IP sock to evade his block in order to continue editing... I don't see where his actions were questionable at all. The IPs edits weren't vandalism... they were a single user using a series of IP socks to revert an article(s) away from an established consensus because they disagree with the consensus themselves. And, as mentioned, evading a block to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Wiki libs - had the IP not been dynamic, it might have been arguable that the best solution would have been to block the IP for edit warring. As that is not feasible, semi-protecting the page is justifiable. Those arguing for misuse of admin functions are, pardon me, behaving like process supercedes everything - rules-wankers, as it were. Suggest they take a step back and try to view the Big Picture. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"rules-wankers"???? - is this really an appropiate way to describe editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the situation before you call us "rules-wankers". The IP address was formatting. He was being reverted, either without explanation, or as Wikilibs said in an edit summary, "removal of cited material". I could be wrong, but I do not see any removal of cited material. The IP may not have gone about this the right way, but 3RR was not broken, and he was reverted with either disingenuous edit summaries or no explanation at all. This really is a matter of "I like this way more than your way", and semi-protection of the page as a way of stopping it was not warranted. None of the editors attempted to discuss this. Enigmaman, as much as I like him, stepped into an edit war between an established user and an IP account. The fact that the IP was dynamic is irrelevant. Siding with the account on the edit war, and then protecting his preferred version, was very poor form indeed. I am removing the resolved tag that that was capriciously put on here. KillerChihuahua, you apparently did not review this situation - at all. Try to view the big picture? Try to understand what's going on first. Tan | 39 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tan. You don't revert and protect an article because you don't like the formatting. Clearly a bad move. Law _{type! snype?} 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I counted the albums on that page a couple of different ways -- Wiki libs' version had 11 albums, the IP's version had 10.-- SarekofVulcan (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I admit perhaps I was a bit over-enthusiastic with reverts. But Wiki Libs and Enigmaman are just as guilty of it as I, and at least I am making an -attempt- at explanation. Oh, and in response to the "dynamic IP" issue, there's nothing I can do about that: My IP seems to change all the time, it's not being done out of malice or ill-will. It just happens.

Thank you to those who have actually shocked me by being rational. Oh, and yes my version has 10 albums: you'll notice this is because I'm removing one album that doesn't appear to have any source. So I'm still not removing any cited content. As I say, it's just formatting, and if anyone disagrees with that I'm perfectly happy to discuss it.

Oh, and Enigmaman has now done the same over at the 1960s in heavy metal music page. That one is slightly different because it's not formatting but it -still- doesn't involve removal of any sourced content. What I'm removing there is unsourced content, and I have explained several times on the talk page how this is in keeping with wikipedia's rules. Thus far the only responses I've received boil down to "We, a couple of anonymous people on the internet, think it's good this way. So there." I have asked time and time again that they simply provide sources, and in the past day or two with every revert I've used an edit summary asking that they look at the talk page. These have received no response whatsoever, and once again Enigmaman has locked the page simply to prevent me from doing anything.

This is not what the protection system is there for. It is there to keep a page stable while things are discussed and sorted out. But given the lack of any attempt at discussion, it would appear Enigmaman is just using it to force the page how he wants it. That's not on. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting that you were overzealous in your reverts is a nice step. But claiming that I was just as guilty??? I really do not see where you are getting that. Prior to your edit war yesterday which went against consensus (where I reverted you twice) I had not viewed the page until back on June 18. And prior to that I had not made an edit to the page unless you go way back into April. So please stay focused on what events actually transpired and don't try and create some sort of false editing history. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally speaking, I do not like to see semi-protection used to lock out IP editors in a content dispute, nor do I think an admin should impose semi-protection after reverting good faith edits. If there is ever any question whether an admin is involved, they ought use WP:RFPP. –xeno^talk 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with xeno. Semi-protection should not be used to end a content dispute between registered and IP editors. Policy doesn't exactly make this clear, but does say that it should only be used to resolve a content dispute if all parties are non-autoconfirmed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the edit-warring was actually between our genre troll and various other IPs. Wiki Libs was just one of the editors he edit-warred with. I can provide links to other articles, if you'd like. Enigma^msg 17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bit of a bandwagon developing here without a key piece of information. Wikilibs makes a comment above that this is a "blocked editor", and a section on Enigmaman's talk page seems to indicate that this is a long-term problem with an editor who has been blocked multiple times for similar edits. If this is true, I've seen several admins semi-protect articles from an IP-hopping long-term problem editor, and reverting their edits if they really are against consensus before protection is SOP. If it isn't true, then someone is being maligned unfairly and we have a problem.

Could someone who's been involved provide links to previous blocks on the IP addresses of this editor? Assuming for the moment that Enigmaman isn't power-tripping right out of the gate, it's quite possible this is a case of him knowing more than we do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I spoke generally; I am working with only bits and pieces of information. –xeno^talk 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another bit/piece of information: This thread] from a few days ago seems to be related. The IP isn't changing from 86.56.100.100 to 86.56.100.101 to 86.56.100.102, so it's too hard for my little brain to figure out whether this is all the same person. I've asked Enigmaman to come to this thread and provide some background, it appears he assumed yesterday it would be more obvious to everyone than it actually is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this helps here is William M. Connolley's block on the same IP sock albeit for edit warring on a different page then the most recent ones (the edit history of the IP shows a habit of edit warring across several pages). The previously mentioned J.Delanoy sock block. The user switched to a different IP and went back to edit warring while still within the block time frame set by J.Delanoy. This sock cat including an 86.X IP may also be related link. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an editor who has been socking for months. His claim of "unintentionally" switching IPs is not so believable when you see his last IP was just used by him a few days previously. Note above that Sarek did the same thing as I did. He reverted and then semi-protected. The editor in question is a classic genre troll and has been abusively socking and edit-warring for months over a slew of articles. My error was in reverting before semi-protecting, I suppose (I only did this on one of the articles I semi'd). I could have left that to someone else, but again, I wasn't the only admin to do that. Unless a checkuser is approached about a rangeblock, semi-protecting is the only thing we can do. This is not a new problem. Wiki Libs knows more about this than I do, but this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm disappointed in the rush to judgment without having all the facts. As Floquenbeam pointed out above, the editor in question just started a similar AN/I thread alleging abuse by J.delanoy two days ago. He has a habit of doing this whenever admin action is taken against him. I think you'll find a bunch more if you look back in the archives. Enigma^msg 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been having problems with banned sockpuppeting User:Azviz (probably more correctly referred to as User:Esasus as that's an earlier account) coming back with more socks to deprod whole long lists of articles without any real rationale and otherwise disrupting the deletion process. Today I've been going through and reverting the invalid deprods his latest sockpuppets added. My method was to see if there had been any edits post the deprod. If so, if it was minor (adding a tag which logically supported the prod, such as singlesource, notability, etc.) I just added to the article with the restored prod. If it was anything beyond minor I either left it or nominated for AFD (or participated in the AFD, as most had progressed to that point, generally with unanimous votes to delete). Note that with restored prods I tried to calculate how much time was left on the prod at the time it was inappropriately deprodded and then changed the start date of the prod to take that into account (so if it was inappropriately deprodded yesterday it had a day or deprodding where nobody could have been aware of the prod notice, so I added a day to the start date of the prod to get the full run). This took me several hours to go through and cleanup, and I'm sure I didn't get all of them. This is mainly a heads up so if any admins see articles like this that they know what happened. DreamGuy (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the socks created the following articles:

• Seniehun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should these be deleted per WP:BAN or should be IAR on this? MuZemike 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BAN is not a suicide pact. If those places exist (which it appears they do, and settlements are inherently notable) then there is no reason to delete them. Black Kite 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I forgot. Per this. MuZemike 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Seven A buttload more IPs have come out of the blue to revert DreamGuy's un-deprodding. Have reported all three to SPI again as they are all Albertan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz again. MuZemike 02:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the editor who created the Bahals above was not confirmed in the sockpuppet investigation, merely as a possible sock, which someone took as a confirmation apparently and indef'd the editor. Since that editor has not requested an unblock, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss whether or not that was correct, but since we cannot be sure that WP:CSD#G5 even applies, who gets the last laugh were we to delete them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not accurate. The part you are referring to said only that checkuser evidence could not confirm, and that "Behavioral and stylistic evidence could be helpful in confirming or denying any relationship between these accounts." The rest of the evidence was looked at and confirmed, hence the block. DreamGuy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Show's over, folks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This user apparently has no experience in editing articles on French culture or mathematics. Recently he seems to have followed me two new articles I have created in a manner that I can only describe as WP:TROLLing and WP:BAITing. I created the quite complicated and carefully sourced article Château of Vauvenargues. I have consulted with the main person responsible for the recent documentation of this chateau, where Picasso and his wife Jacqueline are buried, now quite exceptionally available for view. This has been accompanied by special documentation, available locally here in Aix-en-Provence. CoM attempted to "correct" the lede, when it was still a stub, before the main article was written. He introduced faulty and highly incorrect content, in a highly disruptive way. In particular he quite incorrectly described the small village with its adjacent medieval castle as a "fortified town". Now I have started writing a slightly tricky article in mathematics, on the Butcher group, where I think it can be said without much doubt that ChildofMidnight's has no expertise at all. This again is a tough article to write and is very technical, between pure pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science (numerical analysis). Yet CoM is making a pain of himself. His edits/remarks on the article and its talk page are clueless. Writing this kind of article takes some intellectual effort. CoM cannot have chosen these articles at random: he is making a deliberate to attempt to cause disruption, to follow me around and to upset me. He doesn't have seem to have the slightest clue about this article, still in the course of creation. Unlike him, I am expert in this area and personally know the two main recent contributors to this subject, Alain Connes and Dirk Kreimer. If his aim is to be an anti-intellectual thorn in the flesh of expert contributors, he is certainly excelling. His edits amount to WP:BAITing and gaming the system. I am about to create a new article on the last series of paintings "The four seasons" (1660-1664) by Nicolas Poussin. I don't want to see this troublesome editor wikihounding me there as well. There's something very wrong with this disruptive behaviour. I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked CoM if he would agree to refrain from editing articles that other users are actively editing, as a matter of courtesy and good form if nothing else. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am expert in this area, why does that concern me? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's culturally ingrained, stupid and self-defeating knee-jerk antipathy towards experts, I'm guessing. //roux   23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self proclaimed experts that is, which I am sure you are one :) --Tom (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. //roux   23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to go immediately for the jugular, but how much more disruption are we going to take from CoM before we say "no more" and issue, even if for 24 hours, a block? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a 24 hour block would be preventative not punative for exactly what reasons NeutralHomer? CoM has not even had a chance to reply to this thread yet, acknowledge any errors or agree any action. Hold up on the hammer please. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM has only edited Château of Vauvenargues twice, neither of which I see any problems with. The OP is the only other editor of the page, so if anyone one else had edited this page and anything else he edited, would that editor also be guilty of wikihounding? It isn't disruptive, his edit summaries aren't aggresive and regardless of his past behavior, nothing about these edits demand admin attention. Livewireo (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, can you provide some diffs? If ChildofMidnight is disrupting articles, appropriate action is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, I have no banhammer, just making an observation. But I think for disruptive editing, of which has garnered several ANI and AN posts, I think that some form of block may be necessary. If not now than soon. Again, just an observation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best low-drama solution would be for CoM to agree not to edit either of these articles - or any other articles in the process of being written by MathSci. That would be an excellent demonstration that there's no wikihounding, baiting or whatever going on, and we wouldn't have to argue about it here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. A simple dispute between two editors. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

MathSci has posted here, so let's resolve the issue here. AdjustShift (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Mathsci's bad faith behavior and threats

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• (ex 6) Question - I've been editing some French subjects and chateau/castle/fortress articles in the past, so am I allowed to comment on Mathsci's absurd allegation and threats to CoM? When Mathsci appeared to complain threaten CoM, I checked on the edits made by CoM but I see no "alleged disruption" from two articles. I only saw that bad faith and threats from the complainer instead.--Caspian blue 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked CoM not to edit articles being actively worked on, and I've asked Mathsci to use polite and calm rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned, this can die here if both parties agree. --Laser brain (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment from the complainer is looking for a punishment...I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• I'm aware of that. I don't think a block is in order based on the information presented. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astonishing that Mathsci would come here with a petty dispute over the meaning of the word Bastide. Mathsci used the word in its rarer meaning of Bastide (Provençal manor) and COM read it in its more usual meaning of Bastide and used that meaning, incorrectly as it happened. A modicum of good faith and a brief discussion at the article talk page would have sorted it out without all this drama. As for the movement of one sentence in the Butcher group article, that's just a petty squabble. Mathsci is disturbingly keen to run to AN/I to assert his ownership of articles. That rubric If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. applies to Mathsci too. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At Off2riorob, well, I think if a block should be issued at this time, that has to got to the complainer Mathsci for his intimidation/ incivility and gaming the system and wasting everyone's time. See the below how Mathsci threatened CoM. That is quite disturbing.

you have appeared almost immediately to make not very intelligent changes to the stubbed version[26]
This is a formal warning that if you continue following me around like this, you are likely to be blocked.
Your editing behaviour has been analysed by ArbCom who found it problematic. You now appear to be gaming the system.[27]
Since you seem to have no expertise in mathematics, one more edit to the article will presumably result in a block of a week or more for you, considering your past history.[28]
ou have no idea what the article is going to contain and are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child.
You will be reported at WP:ANI if you continue to wikihound a senior mathematics editor and presumably can expect a block.
I have no idea what is going through your head,
Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless.

I want to say "look who's talking? --Caspian blue 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Mathsci would benefit from having this over eager request for the blocking of another editor for this simple dispute explained to him. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• BTW, what about this edit on Butcher group and this edit on the talk page of Butcher group? C of M doesn't know much about mathematics, so why is he making such edits? Butcher group is a complex mathematical article, and only someone who has mathematics expertise should edit the article. AdjustShift (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any content issues with that article would best be taken to WT:WPM, where there should be plenty of editors competent to do something about it. I agree that CoM doesn't seem to be the right person to work on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Mathsci is a native English speaker? I have an impression that he is not. Whenever I'm expanding a newly created article, editors appears to fix my grammar, and I usually appreciate it. I do not understand the wrath of Mathsci on the petty issue.Caspian blue 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that only certain folks should edit any article is, er, bullshit, excuse my french. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - that's why we have topic bans. Some editors are incapable of editing in certain topic areas without being disruptive (that's not a comment on this particular case, just a general point). Black Kite 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the idea above that only "experts" should edit certain articles, not talking about disruptive editors, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban of Mathsci is premature at this point. But obviously his behavior was abyssmal and needs to improve. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think am apology by Mathsci to CoM would be in order. His original poast here at ANI describes CoM as some sort of idiot knuckle dragger who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Incivility at the least.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume he knows nothing about Hopf algebras of rooted trees, that's all. No need to edit to edit an article on it therefore. However, this is the second time CoM has behaved this way. From his editing record, he is not a recent changes patroller. He has made tendentious edits on uncontroversial articles, where he seems to have little or no idea about the content. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His patrol log says he does patrol new pages. I just don't see his edits in regards to these two articles as being tendentious; he was working on grammar and style, especially in the mathematical one. OK, he make an error with the bastide - WP:AGF. Mathsci, you don't get to have a monopoly on articles you create. LadyofShalott 03:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM's most frequent edits are to Bacon mania and Burnt Hair Records and show a pattern of interest in pop culture.[29] Mathsci's edits are dominated by articles on mathematics.[30] To me, it seems more than likely that the intent of the edits to Butcher group was to provoke Mathsci. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[31] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley blocked CoM

William M. Connolley first pushed the wrong button of indef.block to CoM instead of his intended 24 hours block and left no apologizing comment on the log while he fixing his mistake.--Caspian blue 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Could have been worse, though. CoM could have been blocked for this comment with "Seig Hiel" in it. Completely unnecessary. Good block all around. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAD block - Unless there are more diffs, both CoM and Mathsci needed minor civility / NPA warnings, none of what I see diff'ed or see in edit histories reaches blockable. Clearly warnable, but not to the level of justifying or requiring a block. The "Sig Heil" was obvious intentional sarcasm, a terribly bad joke but not blockable. Wm- I request and recommend an unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GWH. Both parties were at fault here, but neither horribly so. LadyofShalott 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course bad block. Even WMC is currently not sober? Oh....no...NeutralHomer please do not mislead CoM's joke toward me and Pedro's conversation on German language. I hope Gwen clear this up.--Caspian blue 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to Fluffy. At the scenes leading up to the wedding, Fluffy seems to be developing well as a character. There is a scene where chaos developes when Tiger is introduced, and then poof she is gone. I never saw as much as a reference to the cat after that. Is there anyone that knows what happened? Not sure if some tragedy struck off set and she had to be written out of the script or what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.80.53 (talk • contribs)

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we could reduce his block..or just give him another chance. He's not going to break the wiki is he. In fact I will find some cites to say he is innocent of all charges.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think one needs to take a look at the rantings of CoM on Mathsci to see he doesn't need to be unblocked. If anything, he needs to cool down and this block should do just that because I think and this might not be AGF, if CoM were unblocked, he would cause more problems and get himself indef blocked. He needs to cool down and sleep on it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now advocating a cool down block? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read his talk page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has his talk page got to do with anything? Isn't that a place where a little bit of letting off steam is permitted, even by the civility police? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Foghorn Leghorn once said "Go away Kid, ya bother me". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I often say, "Who the Hell cares what idiots think?" --Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL....you're funny :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that CoM is spending his time brushing up on Hopf algebras. Mathsci (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the block of this persistently uncivil and nonconstructive editor. seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blocks, Support all unblocks, Support discussion to resolve the situation of content dispute. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What content? Mathsci (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock, as I see no preventative purpose for this block, and according to the "rules" we don't punish people with blocks. Like CoM or not -- and apparently several in these threads and sub-threads do not -- I fail to see what this block is preventing. Unitanode 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious unblock. While that comment was incivil, it certainly didn't warrant a block. Mostly, I agree with GWH above. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uncivil behaviour has gone on long enough and it is time to acknowledge it and respond to it. Longer blocks should be applied if further incivility persists from anyone involved. I don't see why people rush to defend editors who have made comments like this, its not like CoM is blocked indefinitly. Established editors still have to obey our civility policy. ThemFromSpace 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see C of M as a problematic editor in general, but I don't think I would have blocked in this situation. However it was not an awful block, maybe just not the best idea. There is a real track-record here in terms of some troubling behavior by C of M—including lashing out at other editors—and there have been warnings proffered for that (including by me, though it had more to do with assumptions of bad faith than blatant incivility). Perhaps the best thing at this point is for WMC to unblock, and there is discussion about that on his talk page, though presumably he's sleeping at the moment. However if there's a strong consensus to unblock here I think it would be fine for another admin to go ahead and do that. A few more comments here will probably show us where we stand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. And followup to the above, it's worth looking at a back-and-forth between C of M and User:Georgewilliamherbert on the former editor's talk page (see the following four diffs for the relevant exchange [32] [33] [34] [35]). GWH seems clearly to be trying to help out and calm the situation while saying he disagrees with the block (and some of C of M's behavior), and C of M really unloads on him. Now I know some anger and incivility after a block is to be expected and generally excused, but this stuff is really over the top. A bad block is not an excuse to bandy about phrases like "these assholes" "stay off my fucking page" "fuck off" "baiting by this Frenchman" (!!!) "This block stinks horribly and anyone who defends it or tries to suggest that I've caused it...is either misguided or a moron" and "Mathsci behaved like a jerk" (the last repeating the original infraction). A similar thing happened after the last block, and quite frankly often when ChildofMidnight's editing is criticized—i.e. a series of attacks against other editors (see also this earlier ANI thread for a recent example). It's a long term problem beyond this specific situation and I think it's important to point out that context. Even with that talk page outburst though, I'm still perfectly okay with an unblock if that's the consensus, since I don't think the original block was really necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock. CoM may have been uncivil but he was considerably provoked by Mathsci. If CoM is to be blocked, then for balance Mathsci should have been blocked. But aside from that, these two are the sort of established content editors that contribute huge value to Wikipedia, and administrators should not be so casually applying blocks, just because they get silly from time to time. CoM may have lost his temper, but the situation he is in is not really just. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-fulfilling block - Yea, despite my previous run-ins with this user, the initial block may have been a bit much. But CoM went into full-blown WP:DICK mode defending himself, so in the end it winds up working out ok. Unblock the original and reblock for the tirade on his talk page if you wanna be technical here. Tarc (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usual policy is to cut some slack to the blockee, to let him rant and rave for awhile. However, that's usually on an indef block. This one is only 24 hours. So rather than formally requesting an unblock, he's apparently going to continue hurling insults ("circus clowns" and such) for the remaining 2/3 of his block time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's only for 24 hours, and it's 1/4 over already. Defending incivility by saying others are doing it, does not cut the mustard. But the civility of other editors in the dispute should be reviewed also. Too much incivility is being tolerated on Wikipedia. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. I've seen much worse here in recent times which gets no block at all. Hard to figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • also, CoM has yet to formally contest the block, i.e. he has not filed an unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment'. The root of this incident appears to be Mathsci's onwership issues over articles. He clearly does not know what a 'stub' is (it is not a small article written by one person that is then going to be added to 50 times a day over the next 5 days by that same person). If Mathsci cannot handle people editing articles he is developing, he needs to learn how to use sandboxes and properly draft articles, and only release them when he considers them complete, both in grammar and technical content. He also quite outrageously claims that, because CoM is not a maths expert, he is not permitted to edit the article in question. Others have also quite bizarrely supported this position, without anyone pointing out that the edits made CoM were grammatical. Has anyone actully looked at the diffs? I'm no math's genius, but even I know that a detailed knowledge of numerical analysis is not required to be able to spot a run-on sentence. I won't comment on the stalking allegations, as I have no knowledge of any prior interactions between the two users, but if these two incidents are the extent of it (and the French article dispute is again a nothingness on its own, again aggravated by Mathsci's ownership issues and article development methods), Mathsci is utterly in the wrong, and needs to be told as much. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I've taken issue with this on WMC's talk page aswell[36]. We simply do not need admins on the project who are only willing to monitor for and comment on/block incivility. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum: WMC had nothing to say about my comment bar questioning my probably rather sweeping statement of his interests as an admin. I tried to discuss options for refactoring on his page, as quite clearly I only made that statement in relation to what I have seen in this complaint pending evidence to the contrary, but he's just messing me around over there [37][38], so I'm withdrawing from discussing it further on his page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, MicMavNee, I have now finished the first version of the main article, with all the content I wished to have in the article from my sources. The claim of ownership is hard to understand, especially when an {{inuse-section}} template is present during the period of creation. As is normal other mathematical editors have also been helping in a positive way. In particular User:Michael Hardy added an extremely useful wikilink in the lede (related to his own RL work) which has been spelt out in the main article. User:R.e.b., far more expert than me in this particular area, also did some very helpful fine tuning. Please could you tone down your remarks? What is happening at the moment is that the article is being edited in the normal way for a mathematics article, something with which you might not necessarily be familiar. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (e/c with DG below)I wasn't aware there was an official Mathematics way of developing articles. Unless or until you recognise you have absolutely no legitimate basis to prevent or exclude grammatical edits or 'non-expert' editors from articles you have posted and are still developing, I see no reason to tone down my comments. These are the least problematic of your issues, your general tone in this complaint, and the allegations of stalking, and the use of incivility to counter incivilty, all simply seemingly as a result of another editor making minor changes to articles you are working on, are far more serious. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please tone down your rhetoric and get back to editing this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll edit as a I please thanks. I often edit articles way outside any of my usual on Wiki topic areas, and as such I may indeed not be knowledgable of any unofficial but de-facto specific ways of working understood between regular editors. Based on this ANI complaint and its outcome though, even though I actualy have some Maths background such as rudimentary Runge Kutta etc, I would definitely be wary of going anywhere near any article you were personally involved in, either to edit technical details or make simple grammar edits. Whether you recognise this as an issue or not, it is not rhetoric. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Noted. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly! Enough of this silliness. It's bad enough that Mathsci didn't read what others have written here. Now you aren't reading, either. Both Rjanag and Ched Davis have quite clearly observed that the edits were copyedits and that this very much is a content dispute, over copyedits no less. They beat me to saying that exact thing. I didn't add it, because when I came to save the edit I edit-conflicted with the discussion closure, but I repeat to you a small part of what I would have said to Mathsci, because it applies to you too: Stop! Read! Think! You're going off the deep end.

    I also had a few points to make about Mathsci's apparent poor regard for other editors, from my viewpoint as one who is also an expert and a content writer and an administrator, whose "brilliant prose" has also been mercilessly copyedited by others within the past day. I've withheld them after that edit conflict, in the hopes that the simple passage of time solves matters here. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mathsci says that The claim of ownership is hard to understand, especially when an {{inuse-section}} template is present during the period of creation. This tends to imply, but does not explicitly state, that CoM ignored the templated request. In fact the article history shows clearly that Mathsci added the template in question to the article shortly after CoM's first edit, and to a different section [39]. Mathsci's assertion is thus somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the sentence preceding that quoted will help him understand that "claim of ownership": I have now finished the first version of the main article, with all the content I wished to have in the article. A bolder assertion of ownership would be hard to find. In fact, of the Examples of Ownership at WP:OWN, I find that Mathsci has clearly demonstrated Actions 1 and 3, and Comments 1, 2 and 3. 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. A.K.Nole (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock, and block Mathsci and WMC instead This is obviously a block with no merit. We don't block people for copyedits. Jtrainor (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Better Idea - How about we don't block anyone and we put the stick down and stop the WikiDrama? Because, honestly, is this going anywhere? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With CoM effectively in self-destruct mode, they should be blocked to prevent disruption elsewhere on Wikipedia. Any question of whether the original block was appropriate is now moot. Considering that the block was controversial, CoM should be allowed extra leeway as regards "blowing off steam" on their talk page. I think that about covers it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does...archive away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin admitting to drinking at work

There are many other ways to be unsober than drinking, none of which are against Wikipedia policy. Discuss the block on its merits. –xenotalk 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:William M. Connolley admits to using his mop whilst drinking.."I should slow down, and possibly only edit when sober"... This is no attitude to block another editor. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] I don't think he means he was literally sauced, but it is written somewhere that you have to be sober to edit Wikipedia? I think it would be wise to be sober, but not necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] This admin, in my interactions with him, does a very good job, so if you wouldn't mind, Offriorob, finding out what brand he drinks, I intend to send a barrel or two to other admins. (Thanks, Abe).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC Irish name..Irish drink//I am drinking fermented fruit juice apple, pear and grapes of course...this is the diff between drink and drunk..(Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] I am drinking high caffeinated soda. Does that mean I am wacked out on caffeine and my edits should be thrown out while I am drinking it? I doubt it. Unless we have proof that WMC is drunk or drinking, we shouldn't pass judgement. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec) I agree that it was a poor decision to use the tools while "under the influence". LadyofShalott 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] A block which is already well disputed should not be done by an admin who admits to drinking.. Sorry.. it is not funny.. the editor should be unblocked. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] Can you, right now, prove that WMC is loaded? I can say I am high off my ass...I'm not. People can say that are loaded and not be loaded. To some, it is a figure of speech. Unless you can prove WMC was drinking, you can not pass judgement. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] <edit conflict> Yes. Could we not have acusations of impaired administrator actions and racial / national stereotypes about alcohol use here? Even though I disagree with the block, this line of reasoning is absurd and inappropriate. Please drop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Or, just possibly, this was an off-the-cuff, self-deprecating remark made by an individual who happens to have a sense of humour. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to do? (Please, please, please tell me that Wikipedia:Prohibition is a still redlink....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I tend to agree with you Ten, it was a figure of speech by someone who hit a button too quickly, made a joke, moved on. No more, no less. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Off2riorob, the mention you made on Connolley's talk page was the correct action to take. I don't think it needs to be brought to ANI unless it becomes a recurring matter. Kingturtle (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is that what this is supposed to be..a joke? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] Is the guy still blocked? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] Would you like it if you got arrested by a drunk policeman? no you wouldn't ...(Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply] I think if we responded to everybody who drinks while working on WP, we would have a much much smaller user community. I routinely drink while working on WP... this is a hobby, I'm at home, and guess what I can. If there is a pattern of bad decisions, incivility, etc, you can bring those up... but I don't think it is a major problem. It might not have been the best wisdom to admit it, but many adults drink and can handle it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical trolling

No admin action needed here. LadyofShalott 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as Butcher group is concerned, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the recent editing behaviour of User:ChildofMidnight. I believe it is known by quite a few administrators and arbitrators that I am an expert editor in mathematics, particularly in this particular subject area. That might be painful for young wikipedians to read, but it is alas true. CoM seems to have regressed into very negative editing patterns since the recent ArbCom decision. On the other hand, as I've written before, he is sadly lacking intellectually in the subject area in which he has probably unwisely chosen to edit. That seems to have been his major error. Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] CoM is currently under a 24 hr block for being uncivil to you, so this is perhaps not the best time to be raising such a minor issue. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think Mathsci really needs a "cool-down" break to prevent from making further dramas. You've kept referring to the Obama Arbitration that has nothing to do with CoM's two edits to Butcher group in order to make WP:POINT and show WP:OWNERSHIP. I remember that you defended for your editing buddy on his arbitration who has been much harshly restricted by the committee. Here are his edits to Butcher group. 1) CoM (tweaks) 2) Mathsci rv senseless edit to stub 3) CoM tagging for cleanup. long run-on sentences. poor wording and grammar. needs work. Now, please tell me where is "Mathematical trolling" that you're persistently arguing? --Caspian blue 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec) I haven't really edited this page much lately, unlike others, so I'm not particularly receptive to calls for a cool down period. Personally, I'm not quite sure why I should devote any more of my time to adding extra content to Butcher group, which is at the moment is HOPELESSLY INCOMPLETE because I haven't finished writing it yet. (There is no question of ownership here. Some of this material has been absent from wikipedia for a few years, even if it has been referred to.) But of course I will, because I've already prepared the material quite carefully, even if it was quite tricky. I have no idea why editors like User:Caspian blue are suggesting topic bans from mathematics. In promoting CoM, they seem to have a somewhat upside down view of both wikipedia and the real academic world. If editors think the content of the article is inappropriate for wikipedia, they can of course put the article up for deletion instead of soapboxing. The problem is with CoM, not with an expert editor in mathematics like me. From his edits, he seems to be clueless mathematically at this particular level; that is why his edits seem to be trolling. Mathsci (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Some editors are referring to this as a content dispute. Perhaps as a reality check for these editors, they should spend a few minutes examining the mathematical content of the references. They should quietly ponder whether, in spite of no past interest in mathematics or quantum field theory. CoM has suddenly developed a new and surprising expertise in this quite hard subject. Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] MathSci, CoM has not claimed any expertise in the subject. He has repeatedly said he came upon it while doing new page patrolling. As he made exactly two edits to the page and is currently under a block, I do not think there is any point in continuing this. Please drop it now. LadyofShalott 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yep. I have no comment on the bigger dispute here and on the rest of the editing, but CoM's two edits to Butler group were clearly simple copyedits, no substantive changes, and in fact I think they were an improvement. In any case, this non-issue is not worth arguing over, it's nothing more than a distraction. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec) MathSci, as you asked directly under my post above about "content dispute", I will offer my viewpoints. First, I greatly appreciate that you are willing to contribute such expertise to our site. I would also mention that while we appreciate such efforts, we are an encyclopedic effort - as such, the general "lead" of an article should address the "lay person" when possible. I believe that CoMs edits were an attempt to do just that. The clarification that you can offer is greatly appreciated, but I believe that those items are best expressed in bulk of the article. I see no diffs that CoM contributed as a breech of good faith, and it appears to me that you've become overly defensive of your area of expertise. I'd ask that we de-escalate the situation, and work on improvements to article space. If you wish to work unencumbered on mathematical articles, perhaps sandboxing something in your user space would resolve some of the tensions. Once something is in article space, it becomes the property of all, and "ownership becomes unacceptable. I agree, there have been things typed that perhaps should not have been, but it appears that this has happened on both sides. Please help us de-escalate the situation. — Ched :  ?  02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec) @LoS. No this is the second time he has done this. The first time he did this with Chateau of Vauvenargues. I'm sorry, although you may be a huge fan of his, he is a troublemaker. His edits to the talk page of Butcher group had nothing to do with mathematics or content. Your claim that he was new page patrolling alas does not match in any way his editing record. I've had a quite a long experience editing namespace articles with serious content and this was not patrolling. I have never seen anybody edit advanced graduate-level mathematics articles unless they have some prior expertise. CoM seems to be an editor with rather serious problems, that's all. I'm not asking for anything more to be done about this at the moment. It's 5 in the morning here in France, so I hope you'll excuse me. Bonne nuit. [[User:Mathsci|Mathssi] (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] @Ched Davis. There are clear tags on the article indicating that it's still being written. C'mon, Ched Davis, that is not ownership. It simply means that it takes me some time to write hard articles. I didn't start editing here yesterday. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

What personal attack?

Resolved  – Personal attacks people find funny are OK on Wikipedia ...is that a personal attack, too??? Sheesh. Drop the self-righteousness. Keeper | 76 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [reply] William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) blocked ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) per User talk:ChildofMidnight#Incivility: blocked. Weighing into the discussion about the block on that talk page, Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) left a comment on that talk page calling William M. Connolley a "drunk". I asked Malleus Fatuorum to refactor or redact the personal attack and was met with strong defensiveness and rudeness. An admin should deal with this attack as, as of this posting, it's still present. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] meh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] mountain =/= molehill. This is silly. This does not need to be blown out of proportion. Move along, Allstar, my advice. IMHO, this isn't anything worth boo-hooing. Keeper | 76 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I agree. We've fully milked the drama out of this incident. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Since when did personal attacks become silly? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Gawd. I didn't say personal attacks were silly. I said that you thinking that that was a personal attack was silly. There's a difference. I wonder, is this a personal attack in your mind? Perhaps a break. Go to bed. Keeper | 76 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Referring to another user as a "drunk" is not a "personal attack in my mind", it's a personal attack posted to a user talk page on Wikipedia. It should be removed immediately. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Connolley says he is not sober and someone calls him drunk? Where's the attack? It's more like restating something. Law type! snype? 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Enough stirring the pot please. Kthxbai. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] long before this. (Or that.) ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm just appalled at the nonchalant attitude towards an obvious personal attack. Since people are fine with it, I'll just bookmark this thread for future reference when and if I ever get called out for attacking someone. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not exactly at an all-time high for enforcing civility. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling people idiots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allstarecho has not told the whole truth. Malleus comment was a response at User talk:ChildofMidnight to an indef block by William M. Connolley, who later said, "I should slow down, and possibly only edit when sober. Thanks for pointing that out; I've corrected it. Indef was just a touch harsh". The additional information raises the following issues: Why was Allstarecho making threats about a conversation on another User's Talk page and in which Allstarecho was not involved? I was under the impression that comment on User Talk pages was less constrained by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA than comments on "public" Talk pages (articles, projects, WP policies, noticeboards, etc.). William M. Connolley's conduct was very far short of what should be expected of an admin, especially where a block is concerned. IMO this incident shows he is unfit to be an admin. Allstarecho raised this ANI after I had drawn attention to the backstory - which is also published at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:ChildofMidnight. I think Allstarecho should explain why he pursued Malleus when Malleus' comment was brief and, as far as the evidence indicates, accurate. --Philcha (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Maybe others should have been blocked in addition to CoM? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] And now I'm a liar for not rehashing the history of CoM's block? Love how you, Philcha, have turned this around on me. The fact is, I noticed via my watchlist that CoM had been blocked. I went to CoM's talk page to see what it was all about. I noticed the personal attack by Malleus. As a courtesy, I went to Malleus' talk page and politely asked the user to refactor or redact the attack lest I bring it up for discussion elsewhere - a courtesy in so much as asking the user directly and first. The user responded defensively and rudely. End of history. And to clarify to Philcha, a user's talk page does not lax personal attack rules. No matter how much you want to spin it - and you did a good job of it here and here - referring to another user as a "drunk" is a personal attack. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's interesting how often Connolley's name shows up in complaints here. Now someone is calling for him to be de-sysopped. Ironically, Connolley himself called for Docu to be de-sysopped. Over allegedly bad blocks? No, over his refusal to kiss up on the signature guideline. [40] Maybe it would be best for all concerned to back off the de-sysop bandwagon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight again

no lengthening of block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved  – no lengthening of block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Based on this new edit, I think his block for incivility should be extended before it expires. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hm.. Allstarecho again...--Caspian blue 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] And that's supposed to mean what? Just because of who I am, I'm not allowed to comment? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Second the suggestion, but I've had run-ins with CoM before, so I'd rather someone uninvolved make the call.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] First, Caspian, just because ASE brings something to this board doesn't mean you have to post about it with snide little comments. Second, I have to agree with ASE. CoM is going off on a tagent about something that doesn't even involve him and the incivility in his statement (the one linked by ASE) is horrible. An extended block for that statement and the unloading by CoM on Georgewilliamherbert last night should be necessary. Incivility is NOT and never is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Read my comment below Xeno.--Caspian blue 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Could you guys stop edit warring over the location of this section? It's hard to hit a moving target. I believe it belongs here, under its parent. –xenotalk 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, Allstarcho, you're making another new tread to attract more admin's eye just after your failed attempt to Mall. That is what I meant for mentioning "again". The issue is ongoing, so your "new thread" belongs here. Besides, think about your recent block. Don't you rash out various insults toward admins and editors who advised you? You've also been there, but why are you making more dramas?--Caspian blue 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] "assholes" and "monkeys" are all I see there (and not specifically directed), that would warrant a WQA at most - doubt it would result in a block for incivility. Wasn't the original block contentious itself? So you want to extend a contentious block with an extension that will be equally or even more contentious? –xenotalk 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec)It was only contentious because he was the only one blocked. Technically, the block was good but the other editor he was having issues with should have been blocked too - for the same reason, incivility. That said, the latest rant calling other editors "assholes" and "monkeys" only shows he doesn't care about being civil. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Really? I've taken worse than that and didn't come to AN/I over it. Maybe a little backbone is in order. Seriously though, is this really that big of a breach of civility? Soxwon (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] That diff should go to WP:WQA at most. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] WQA is a waste of time, in my opinion. The only thing that WQA does is essentially slap you on the wrist and tell you "now, don't do that again". For incivility and mark my words, there will be MUCH more once CoM is unblocked, needs a stern answer, not a slap on the wrist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The block of CoM was a cool down block which didn't. Yes, he was over-reacting to reverts of his copyedits, and he has certainly not been helping his case since, as I have told him on his talk page. The solution is not more over-reaction or extending the cool down block. Please, everyone, just stop poking at this editor. There's been far too much drama already. Jonathunder (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Then a strong consensus here would be the only way to lengthen the block, short of CoM aiming a stinging, straightfoward PA at a named editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support stinging, straightforward personal attack at a named editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I redacted some words that possibly sounds uncivil to some editors, and CoM agreed on it. So I hope the matter that Allstarcho has raised can be tied down. Yes, everyone should stop poking on CoM.--Caspian blue 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec) I'm presumably one of the "assholes" and/or "monkeys" to whom he refers (C of M does not care for me in the slightest because I've warned that editor about editing behavior on the Obama articles in the past), but I don't think this warrants a block. The initial block was at best questionable and that fact should be taken into consideration. C of M has responded to it quite poorly, but that editor has in the past felt Grundle2600 has gotten a raw deal (I utterly disagree with that, for what it's worth) so the most recent comment is not all that surprising. I think it would be best to let this go, though it would be terrific if ChildofMidnight would let off on attacking other editors with whom he or she disagrees. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can we all just drop the stick already, please? There's no point in continuing this drama. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] We should let the fire die, not dump more gasoline on it. A block extension won't serve any useful purpose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Resolved

 – User topic-banned by the community from editing articles related to U.S. politics and politicians for 3 months, as determined by Thatcher (talk · contribs) below.  Sandstein  15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]