User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Wikipedia," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Wikipedia mirror, it can't be used to reference a Wikipedia article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH ^ping! 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.[1]. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Wikipedia compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Wikipedia is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action [5]. While you pretend you "push[ed] for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of [[WP:BLP|BLP] content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Wikipedia, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac (Doc), it is unfortunate that your involvement was based on a personal invitation to comment by Delicious carbuncle. Given that you portrayed yourself as an administrator who may choose to investigate these claims against me by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and chose not to declare an interest, could you please now confirm the nature of your pre-existing relationship or collaboration history on and off wikipedia with Delicious carbuncle? Ash (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense is this? I indicated that you might not view me as neutral here. What exactly are you alleging now?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I have "alleged" anything, I apologise if you were able to infer anything to that effect or if it appears to be nonsense to you. I asked for clarification as you said, "I may have time to look closely myself later...". You also stated that I may not see you as sufficiently neutral, this was a statement about me, not a statement about whether you have a pre-existing interest. When I later realized that you had been invited to comment here by Delicious carbuncle, I was taken aback as I had the impression that you were referring to our previous discussions about your use of language that has offended other editors. Ash (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem. My only "pre-existing interest" is a hatred of people playing fast and loose with BLP sourcing - which is probably why DCarb approached me. Is that a problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Talk:Vladimir Correa, all the above contested sources have been removed. The article did not rely on these sources though any editor is free to re-add them, and if they wish to be super-civil about it, they can add some appropriate rationale on the article talk page. I see little benefit in continuing this thread or explaining why Scott Mac's "hatred" of certain people may be a problem. Ash (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence

Since some editors seem to be reluctant to view the references associated with gay porn performers -- some of which maybe "not safe for work" -- I picked two articles on UK bathhouses, Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch. These articles were created and expanded almost solely by Ash, which avoids the issue of Ash sourcing the text of other contributors.

In Chariots Shoreditch:

• The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.
• The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.
• The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

In Pleasuredrome:

• A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
• The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
• The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to "The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasuredrome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also making a mountain out of a molehill. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not accurately present the standards for the use of self-published claims, which are found here [6]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that Pleasuredome is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. This entire exercise has been yet another WP:Drama fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. Civil vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like DC picked apart these two articles, finding lots of poor sourcing and your response is to pooh-pooh it. Not helpful. I suggest that some interested party go stub out everything cited to the problematic sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Lar on this one - if sources have been forged that is rather large issue for the project and needsto be dealt with as productively as possible, soon. - Schrandit (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that this entire thread is designed to disparage an editor not because any content they edit is untrue but that it is focussed on gay sexual activities. Why Delicious carbuncle is so focussed on wikihounding editors who work in these subject areas is for others to judge for themselves, a visit to Wikipedia Review may help. That they feel it is their right and duty to publicly flog and enact their pound of flesh seems to be the actual underlying issue. The oft-bandied BLP flag of concern rings hollow when the fact remains that person X is the same person X who indeed does gay porn. This all digresses from the fact that we, of course, want high quality sources but this "evidence" suggesting that a company's <ZOMG!> paid advertisement used to support information about their services is somehow fraudulent remains ridiculous. Obviously it would be better to use an independent source however statements by the subject of an article are considered reliable as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banjeboi

Incidentally, does anyone have a copy of the fifth edition of "The Rough Guide to London" by Rob Humphreys & Judith Bamber handy? I've asked Benjiboi to scan page 508 for me, but he has refused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you placed a request at WP:REX? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Wikipedia review forum, it appears that Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald and Lar are members. This may not be an complete list and yet seems to be most of the contributors keeping this discussion going. As this may represent a direct or indirect form of canvassing or lobbying against gay-sexuality related articles, could someone please confirm what is going on and if this mets the guidelines for ANI discussion? Ash (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, please stop trying to slander my good name here by trying to associate me with controversial websites (although if Lar and Scott MacDonald -- both of whom are trusted admins -- frequent the site, I suppose I would be in good company). This appears to be yet another attempt to direct attention away from your misuse of sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you are the right person to answer my question. I did not realize that Wikipedia Review was considered controversial here. As for interpreting my question as an attempt to slander your good name, I shall resist pointing out the obvious. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed responses to the trivial questions raised about sources have been answered on Talk:Pleasuredrome#ANI_comments and Talk:Chariots_Shoreditch#ANI_comments rather than extending this dubious thread. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple examples of an editor found to be misrepresenting sources and no action taken? This is not a routine editing matter. It's one of the most basic violations of the minimum trust and responsibility Wikipedia needs to maintain credibility and accuracy and to protect living people from harm. This is not a matter for routine editing (i used to try to fix these problems; after getting caught up in "edit wars" with others that oppose basic minimum standards of sourcing and verifiability and being bludgeoned with brainless "AGF" mantras, I gave up.) The mind boggles. (Oh yeah: I am not now nor have ever been a member of Wikipedia Review, not that it's remotely relevant.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been demonstrated that I have been misrepresenting sources. Questions were put forward about some of the sources contained in 3 of the articles I created up to 4 months ago. These questions have been answered and could have easily been addressed by friendly discussion on the article talk pages at any time in the months after they were created rather than escalating directly to ANI. I have made 22,000+ edits in total and 8,000+ of these in the last 3 months. What you see is a fishing expedition, primarily kept going by one editor who has raised 2 previous failed ANIs against me and is aware of pre-existing preparations to start an RFC/U against them and has a current WQA raised against them due to civility problems (see User:Ash/analysis). I suggest you check my edit history for yourself if you remain concerned, I would be happy to discuss any suggestions for improvement you might have on my talk page. Ash (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And i've made about 7,500 edits to wikipedia. Not a single one of those edits has used a false citation for anything. Your defense seems to be that of your edits reviewed by carbuncle (i rather doubt he's reviewed them all) only three have involved misattribution. That's no defense at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my "defense" is that none involves misattribution. Please check the facts. It is quite normal for an article to improve and citations to also be improved. This should not lead to hysterical allegations of perpetrating fraud and is not the way to use ANI. Ash (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "defense" is surpassingly ridiculous. It's well-established that you misrepresented sources (presenting claims in a advertisement as though they were standard editorial content of the magazine in which the advertising appeared; making unfounded claims as to the source of information found on a retail site you added as a reference). The bottom line is that you regularly add content to articles with referencing and sources that fail WP:RS and WP:BLP, then attack the motivations of editors who challenge your practices rather than addressing the substantive issues. Your insinuations above that two respected editors like Lar and Scott MacDonald are part of some homophobic cabal based at Wikipedia Review, without a shred of evidence, are fairly compelling demonstrations of your lack of good faith and of the vacuousness of your "defense." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, please finish preparing your RFC/U and file it. I withdrew my MfD of User:Ash/analysis only because you claimed that you were about to file something. That was a week ago. WP:USER specifies that such pages are only permitted provided they "will be used in a timely manner". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could first be civil enough to co-operate with the open WQA raised by another editor. I note that you only withdrew your MfD after unanimous feedback that you were in the wrong. In that MfD you were advised by one of the contributors that MfD "is not a cudgel for personal abuse"; the same applies to the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. I do not see why you should be the one setting a timetable here. Ash (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not setting a timetable. If you are not ready to file the RFC/U, you can ask for the page to be deleted until such time as you are. Personally, I would prefer that you go ahead and file it, so we can get it over and done with. Please see the new MfD here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate venue for this subject. you've raised the issue with another MfD and once again, with this edit YOU have been the one to move a discussion off topic. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core policy violations being ignored?

Back in December, sourcing issues were noted in an article under discussion at AfD. On the BLPN thread raised by User:Cirt, the admin who closed the AfD, I took the time to go through some of the citations used in the article and point out exactly what was wrong with them. No one, including Cirt or Ash, who added most of those citations, bothered to fix them or deal with the underlying issue of using references to source facts not contained in those references.

I brought that discussion up again here because it seemed relevant. I took the time to find further evidence of Ash's fraudulent use of citations, which I laid out as clearly and concisely as possible with diffs and links to the sources. At least two admins have commented here that this needs to be dealt with, yet this thread is languishing here while Ash continues to create and expand BLPs. What needs to be done to get some action here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is only "languishing" because you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are keeping it from being automatically archived.

Creating sub-threads is an obvious tactic to making this ANI look more substantial than it really is.

There has been no evidence that I have deliberately perpetrated fraud.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original issues with the Dave Awards citations are being addressed by dialogue with the original publisher, so that thread is closed.

All the other "examples" you put forward have been addressed on their respective article talk pages (which should have been the first port of call rather than ANI) and so their threads are closed.

Should any administrator care to look at your and HW's user talk pages it is evident that neither of you are impartial when is comes to the topic of gay pornography related articles, with various complaints about inappropriate PRODs and AFDs being raised. My work over the last 2 months to create a series of reasonable start-level articles for gay pornographic actors appears to be the real issue that you have with my existence on Wikipedia, a task that I started after you purged all "non-bluelink" names from the list of actors in gay porn films. It is notable that you have not raised any questions about any edit I have made more recently than November/December 2009. Considering my 8,000 edits since then, and my lengthy track record of collaboration, it seems highly unlikely that any independent admin would find anything of interest in the claims of fraud based on the thin evidence you provided so far. I suggest you let this ANI die to a lack of anything for an admin to do, just as with the previous poorly judged and inflammatory two ANIs you have raised against me since I started contributing to the genre of gay pornography related BLPs in January this year. Ash (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I do not see any persecution of the complainant, but I found that one of the files he uploaded was an unambiguous copy-right violation and deleted it. The complainant should definitely learn more about copy-right in general, and Russian one in particular. Her also should familiarize himself with WP:MOS and WP:N. No further action, in my opinion, is required. Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your refactoring of my talk page post. Do not insert your comments in my posts, only after my signature. As to their advice, it was quite clearly given to you by EMMIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?? I didn't wrote nothing on your talk page! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem andWikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Wikipedia standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Wikipedia policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you point to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Wikipedia, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Wikipedia, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of "help" I had received from EEMIV with these files:

• Revision history of File:Praporshchik Volentir.jpg
• Revision history of File:Tarasov and Shwetz.jpg

I understand - it's all a struggle for Wikipedia copyright policy. But is it necessary to be so overzealous? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is starting to become annoying. User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice. He acts as if he owns the articles that he has created. His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication as he tends to misunderstand many comments and often interprets them as a kind of personal attack, even if they are not. I have offered advice on several occasions and extended an olive branch when he got upset about the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD after he deprodded them. I cleaned up some of the grammar/spelling of some of these articles (see histories of Chris Adams (character) and Calvera (Character)) and in the process removed the academic titles (as is customary) of some authors who had written books that were added by SerdechnyG to show notability for the articles. Again, SerdechnyG got very upset and reverted me three times on both articles. Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice

For example?? I received NO advices from you yet. All your rebukes could be directed inversely.

His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication

It's difficult to communicate only with you and User:EEMIV. Nobody else said that it's very difficult. All other users simply corrected my grammatical mistakes and nobody told me that my knowledge of English is limited. And guess why? Because I allready know it without outside assistance. So, thank you, Captain Obvious, indeed.

the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD

It's no fact! I privatised them or what? Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. THERE IS NO "MINE" OR "YOUR" ARTICLES.

Again, SerdechnyG got very upset

Don't worry about me. I'm not so upset as you may thinking. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you and I have already delivered that message a few times; SerdechnyG either doesn't believe it or doesn't understand it. Hopefully mentorship with RadManCF will be useful. Regardless, this ANI thread is stale. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right: a message. I hope, both of you understand the difference between advice and message. My mentor - is only my mentor. This mentorship is out of your competence, we will sort it out ourself. And last, this thread is stale because of your presence here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just perfect. Masks off. Now they have their own administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't it even occur to you that there was no 3RR violation?? At least not from EEMIV or me: you violated 3RR on two articles. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Maybe it's you, who violated it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Crusio, no one's getting through to this guy. Let his mentor take a whack at it; we, obviously, won't change his mind. Let's let SerdechnyG get the last word in on this thread, and then the magic bot can archive this long-stale conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided, that it would be my last word? Don't worry, even if this magic bot archive this conversation, it will be easy to restore it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. I always keep thinking that reason should triumph, but of course the world is not ideal... Let's spend our time on better undertakings. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought why it's not ideal? I suppose, not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, it's too much to discuss. I wouldn't describe everything, but only the main points. As for their "second" SarekOfVulcan. I can understand his anger, but let me answer him with John Wayne' words: "It's not me [who done it]! It's El Shaitan!"
As for User:Crusio following all of my actions in wiki, I can say that I was slow in informing him about starting this tread and another one, because I had some... let's call it premonition, that he need no my notifications, because he allready knows about it, by constanly watching my contributions-list. Considering his statements that "I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project" it's all looks curious and maybe even suspicious. Some morbid attention towards my person, isn't it?
As for User:EEMIV. He got to the point that picture on my user page and even my avatar must be deleted. Well, actually I have a few pictures on the wall in my kitchen, and... Oh, boy! They're not copyrighted properly! They must be deleted! Happy deleting! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian above asked you to learn the policies & guidelines. That seems a bit unreasonable, as there are hundreds of them (I can't find the exact number). You're probably right in saying nobody knows them all. Perhaps someone would like to suggest the "important" ones. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it would be so.
But still, User:EEMIV shows not so good knowledge of the rules and policies, which he is trying to enforce. However, I think that knowledge of them all is unnecessary, more important is to follow the spirit of Wikipedia. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "spirit" of Wikipedia is found in the policies and guidelines created through a consensus determined by the community. Unfortunately, competence matters here. Some people "can't get it" and even when all of their efforts are made in good faith, if their results are disruptive they don't belong. Knowing every piece of every policy and guideline isn't necessary, but coming to an understanding of major policies and guidelines is essential. Most especially, if someone points out that you are violating one of them, and explains why, and links it to you, and you ignore it, you're never going to function here. These are standards expected of everyone, and you asked if you are being singled out. I don't think so. You asked if you should pack your bags. If your reaction to every suggestion to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia is to throw stones, then yes, you should. -- Atama頭 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, indeed. But am I contesting or violating major policies and guidelines? If "Yes", please tell me about it, I must know all my misdeeds. And I carefully studying everything, what someone links me to, but what if someone who I had pointed out that they're violating some of basic principles or policies, ignores my message? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

(out)SerdechnyG wrote the following on his talk page to another editor, in reference to a conversation taking place with EEMIV:

Солидный выбор, спасибо оценил. Но сей товарисч, который меня достаёт, найдёт ещё что-нибудь чтоб пристебаться. Так что для меня это вопрос чести и достоинства. Как говорил к-н Пронин в одном из мультиков: "Это мы еще посмотрим, кто кого уничтожит..."

I don't know Russian, but Babelfish translates it as:

Solid selection, thanks estimated. But this [tovarisch], which me [dostaet], [naydet] is still anything in order to [pristebatsya]. So that for me this is the point of honor and merit. As spoke some Pronin in one of [multikov]: " This we still will look, who whom will destroy… ".

which really doesn't sound at all friendly. I've asked S for a clarification, and suggested that it's rude to have side conversations on English Wikipedia in another language so that the editor referred to cannot read them.

All in all, besides the question of whether S has enough competency in English to edit articles here, his or her attitude seems very problematic, combatitive, defensive and not at all open to helpful advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRuban gave a translation of SerdechnyG's comment, and while it appears to be somewhat sarcastic, that's about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like nobody even tries to read this tread from very beginning. Still no advices. Only suspicions. Is my talkpage so interesting? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When many editors give you advice and you continue to state that nobody has, that starts to bring your competence to participate collaboratively here into question, and tends to lead toward community banning discussions. Is that really where you want this thread to end up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're calling advice:

Eventually, EEMIV realized that every time SerdechnyG said "As you wish", he actually meant... err, never mind, strike that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe SerdechnyG is actually looking for "advice", but really just wants someone to say that they're going to block or admonish EEMIV and Crusio in some way. Based on this discussion, I don't believe that's going to happen, so S would be best advised to stop not hearing what people are saying, and stop beating a dead horse. (S: That's an idiomatic English expression which means that you have taken your complaint as far as it will go, and you're not going to get the results you want, so it's time to stop and go on to doing something else. Failure to "walk away" will likely result in some action being taken against you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well B, why should you believe it? Actually I never stated that I am looking for "advice". -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your words and your behavior lead me to believe that -- since I cannot read your mind, I have no other way to judge your intentions. And if you don't want advice, then why did you write "Still no advices" just above? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were really "Still no advices". Please don't misquote me. I didn't wrote that I don't want advice. Who is English native speaker - me or you? Please, do not descent to my limited grasp, otherwise I'll never reach fluent level of English to give respective respond. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this tread is still active, so "horse" seems to be not so dead as you may think. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I frankly don't have a clue what you mean, and I'm not really all that interested in working it out, so don't bother clarifying on my account -- but believe me, I can smell the carcass from here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't misquote me". Means: Please, do not cite words which I did not write. And believe me, not only you can smell the carcass from here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to WP:AN as a general behavioral/status question without a specific "incident" to support being here.
Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. Beyond My Ken

Will somebody please give Mbz1 (talk · contribs) something stronger than a cup of tea? Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors (we were all told not to have anything to do with one another). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama, especially the "Temporary topic ban" section.

Now that the ban has ended, Mbz1 awarded a barnstar to another editor in which she referred to Factsontheground as "lies-on-the-ground"[7]. She left a series of nasty messages at User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is not a forum related to a five-day-old message. When Georgewilliamherbert left two messages there for FoTG, Mbz1 added an unnecessary taunt. When I removed it, she restored it. Twice.

Mbz1 is growing emboldened by the fact that her behavior seems to be sanctioned by the admins and others who watch this page. Is somebody willing to stand up and tell her, No!, you can't insult, offend, and taunt other editors? Or is this sort of behavior okay now? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly that is not ever warrant a response, but in the last few minutes Malik Shabazz violated two wikipedia policies 3 times:

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO, and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner"

threatened me with the "perma-ban" in the violation of WP:TPNO in particular: * Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you

Looks like Shabazz forgot to add that that my message he reverted was posted in response to that: Factsontheground wrote about me: I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda " with no reason whatsoever.

Of course I would not have objected, if factsonground removed my message from the talk page.Shabazz should not have done that.

For the record factsonground did not remove my message, and instead has responded calmly to Georgewilliamherbert, Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me.

About "nasty messages" here's another thread wich explains the things.

Something else should be mentioned. Shabazz writes: "Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors" . There's a mistake in that statement. We all were banned from interacting with each other. Please see here for example.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of TPO is false. Funny how you use it to remove attacks on yourself by other editors, such as Vix, but when you yourself are the one making the attacks, you claim otherwise. Mal's removal of your personal attacks has not violated TPO. Remember, Mb, the behavior of others does not excuse your own. You were in the wrong for attacking Facts, and for continuing to restore the attacks. It's time to admit it, and cease.

Secondly, mistake or not. The point still remains. You were banned from interacting with others because of personal attacks and sniping. Immediately after the ban, what do you do? You personally attack and snipe.

Admins, I implore you. You have the power to make this stop, and this user obviously is not going to stop unless blocked. She's made that crystal clear.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he didn't violate TPO with the warning of a perma-ban. Admins are well within their rights to threaten problematic editors who refuse to follow the rules with blocks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus969, would you be so kind to please spell out what of my messages that I left at factsonground's talk page you consider to be PA? I mean let us all laugh not only me. :) In a meantime please kindly stop wikihounding me all over the places May I please ask you to ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely ? Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, I am one of the others that watch this page, but I was sorry I didn't manage to get a comment in at ANI see this. There does seem to be a bit of a conspiracy to "get" Mbz1. I find it interesting that a user was allowed to template someone's talk page something like a dozen times in half as many hours, with the templated user asking that the behavior cease, and this is not considered harassment. Over the last couple of weeks Mbz1 has been harassed on her talk page, on others' talk pages, been put up for all kinds of wiki-charges (sock puppet, 3R, editwarring and now a second ANI) by editors with a particular POV. The behavior of editors and admins alike to Mbz1 has just been abominable. If what Mbz1 has said is true, that she has only recently begun editing in the Israel-Palestine area, and that most of her edits before that were related to her magnificent photographs which she gives freely to the Project, then all this harassment is in fact against WP:BITE. I also wanted to add to the last ANI the fact that I thought that the administrator User:Breein1007 did exactly the right thing by removing a false accusation against User:Mbz1 -- that was exactly the appropriate thing to do. User:Malik Shabazz on the other hand, admonished the editor, but left the false accusation up. This in an Afd that was brought against a page started by Mbz1 and filed by aforementioned User:Factsontheground within hours of its creation. I am willing to bet big money that Facts had dealings with Mbz1 in a prior article in which he felt he was frustrated in his editing by user MBz1 and consequently has been dogging her at other articles. Malik seems to be supporting accusations of lack of etiquette against Mbz1, at the same time not considering the behavior of Facts with respect to Mbz1. To my mind if Malik had been operating with fairness toward Mbz1 he would never have allowed a false accusation against her all the while knowing it was false. Thus I see him as part of the problem, obviously following her contributions, hounding her with yet another lawsuit which the community has already said it is not interested in. I think that user:Malik Shabazz should not WP:BITE and take a step back from this engagement. He is the more senior editor, an administrator, and he should know better. It looks to me like this suit was brought as a n attempt to harass and entrap another user with whom, incidently or not, he does not share a POV in the I-P area. Stellarkid (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see the post where Malik Shabazz threatens to ask for a permaban at ANI. That is quite a bit "stronger than a cup of tea." Stellarkid (talk)

Err, Stellarkid I'm not an admin. But thanks anyway for the kind words :P Breein1007 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, isn't that a bunch of BS. You've been here since early 2009, yet you've only contributed to this page 113 times. You say you watch this page, but I'm sure, anyone that has watched this page would know, it is very, very difficult to sort through the torrent of edits that this page receives in the watchlist. Let us also not forget that you call Breein an admin, despite the fact that they have not been here that long, do not have admin privileges, and do not even have rollback. In fact, your praise of this user that you know absolutely nothing about leads me to believe that you two are related.. somehow. I also love how you completely fail to address all the attacks Mb has put against people. Your styles are remarkable similar.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratching this entire post instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is really very little in your post I care to respond to, but I will say one thing only. I spent several hours looking at the last ANI report, going over the diffs and going back and forth to pages in my attempt to understand what was going on. It is a little convoluted I grant you, but it can be sorted out if one cares to. I happen to care to since I happen to like User:mbz1. I guess you are planning on going for another fishing expedition at checkuser? Any objective person should be able to see in a flash that are styles are far from "remarkable similar' [sic].Stellarkid (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, this isn't about WP:BITE and it isn't about Palestine or Israel. It's about Mbz1 and her behavior. This edit summary is a perfect example. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have explained to admin my edit summary here, and he sees no problems with that. I am not sure why you do? You do not want to look as Daedalus969, do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now Shabazz is adding to WP:Drama by collecting the troops :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at that edit summary and have to agree that Mbz1 dealt with it appropriately. If she wants to call something nonsense on her talk page I certainly think she has the right to do so it being turned into a capital offense. I notice that Daedalus969 has no problem calling others' contributions BS without getting a reprimand. It is hard to see you as evenhanded. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "collecting the troops". Following the instructions at the top of the page: "You must notify any user that you discuss." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of title of this ANI report is in itself leading. "at it again"? This falls in line with your re-insertion of inflammatory and false information into the Afd after it was appropriately removed. I had initially thought you had only not removed it, but in looking further I see that you actively attempted to maintain this libelous material along with every other editor here who is voting to sanction Mbz1. [8]. Mbz1 (and Breein) had every right to remove such material from the Afd, per WP:TPO, and I see your participation here as exacerbating the issues here. Stellarkid (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling your contributions BS. I'm calling your refusal to see that Mb has insulted users, and that Mb refuses to stop insulting users is bad and unacceptable, BS. I'm calling the fact that this report is about Mb's recent behavior, not that stuff that was a week ago that you brought up, BS. Behavior of others does not excuse the behavior of yourself. Stuff that happened a week ago has no bering on the fact that Mb was banned from interacting with Facts, and right off the bat at the end of the ban, they proceed to personally attack that very user again. That's what I call BS.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the fishing expedition, it seems odd that you would do as much research as you say, yet miss the fact that Bree isn't an admin. Other than that, I'll retract the accusation for now. As you can see, by this edit, it is struck through above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment There are so much more behind the story. If there's is/are some fair administrators, who have a time and a wish to hear my side of the story, I am more than willing, and more than ready to provide all the differences and explanations for each and every one of them at my talk page step by step, yet I see no reason to post it here. That's why I am banning myself from posting to AN/I for the next 72 hours, and I will respect that ban, unless I would be asked to comment on something in particular by somebody, except Daedalus969 of course. Here's my last wish :) before I leave AN/I: No matter what happened please, please, please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely. I am begging you! And with that, please have a nice talk, everybody :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment by unomi

I was very briefly involved with the last ANI bruhaha on this, I believe all my comments were to the effect that these editors should try to stay clear of each other and that mbz should contact an admin if problems continued.

I am very dismayed to see that Mbz1 chooses to taunt and poison the well wrt factsontheground:

• March 18:PA in ES.
• March 18: Templates a regular, even though mbz1 was fresh off an ANI where mbz1 stated that this was unwelcome.
• March 18: accusations of intimidation is apparently better.
• March 18: In an ES of post to LessHeard VanU factonground should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later.
• March 18: Unnecessary taunting.

General Inflammation:

• March 17 practically everything that factsontheground and daedalus969 are doing is "a pointless mess". Glad somebody understood it at least :).

• March 18 Awards barnstar to NuclearWarfare with digs at Daedalus969.

General Responses:

• March 17: Responds to GWHs suggestion with Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about.

• March 18: Responds to LessHeard VanU's suggestion with I see no reason to respond the nonsense.

• Mbz1 is also maintaining a page of perceived wrongs yet has not at this point stated that they are preparing for a RFC/U

It does not strike as though the editor in question is acting in a manner that is consistent with our behavioral policies. It also seems unlikely that the editor is able to interact with peers in a positive and cooperative fashion as it relates to I/P or middle east articles. Unomi (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, something which addresses the main issue at hand, with evidence no less.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes by editors purporting to be neutral

Bree and Stellar both purport to be neutral in this case, and they both purport to have seen the ANI thread because they are regularly on ANI. However, they have been in contact with Mb prior:

• Bree's message from Mb
• Stellar's message from Mb

The point here is that there is a chance both these users thus put Mb's talk page on their watchlist, and only found this ANI report, and the last one, because of this.

The same for Avenue (talk · contribs).

But the above is not the first messages Mb has sent to these users. She has been in contact with them for awhile, dating back to January 25, 2010 for Bree and February 27, 2010 for Stellar.

As to neutrality, take this interesting edit. Not surprising that they come to Mb's defense, and obviously, per this, it is obvious they didn't just stumble upon this thread as they purport.

Lastly, here is an interesting diff between Stellar and Mbz1:

• More insults, calling other its and talking about indefinitely banning them

If only Bree and Stella had the courtesy to come forward with their contact with the user, unlike Facts here who, right off the bat, posted that he had been in contact with the user before, instead of claiming otherwise(or perhaps they never explicitly denied it in the first place).

To conclude, I would then request, aside from U above, that people disclose important information like this. I also hope that admins use the above, when reviewing this case.

Second last thing before I end this section, admins should review this page, in case any other editors, mainly the ones listed there, stop by to comment.

As the last thing, one should note Bree has come to the defense of one of the editors listed in the above page. Seems Mb, Bree, Drok, and Nab know each other quite well, at least enough to watch their talk page, and jump to their defense.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely

Resolved

 – Everybody seems to agree that these too should not interact for a while, so be it. The arbcom decision [9] allows for such restrictions. Therefore, Daedalus969 and Mbz1 are to avoid all direct interaction for 3 months. I know the consensus was for an indefinite ban; however, I'm not comfortable with that. If any other admin wants to extend the ban, by all means.

Dave (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are only very few differences, there are way to many to count all of them, but I could present them by request.

Few days ago the user left 11! warning messages at my talk page, few after I asked the user to stop:

1. [10];[11];[12];[13];[14];[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20].
2. daedalus969 reports me to vandalism board, calling me a "vandal". The request was deleted.
3. reports me for edit warring, which was declined declined with a message by closing admin: ":What a pointless mess
4. follows me to NuclearWarfare talk page
5. after which is warned to stop constant pursuit of me across multiple fora, but the user never stopped.
6. Here's the user reverts me once again

Please, please help me to get a restriction order from that user.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Stellarkid (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want me reverting you, perhaps you should stop personally attacking other users. You you need to be indef blocked from this site, as you are obviously incapable of doing anything but attacking people.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 5 is also complete bullshit, as I had ceased from responding to you, only until you began attacking me and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support mutual separation of these editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I obviously oppose as if this user does not want people reverting them, perhaps they should stop attacking others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Let's make it a few months, and maybe you'll both grow up in the meantime. AniMate 06:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sounds like the most reasonable solution.--Gilisa (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote in the section below, Malik and Ani.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support I would support a 1 year ban with the condition that upon any further drama after the 1 year, the ban is reinstated permanently. 4 months is not enough time for some people to grow up. Breein1007 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should talk. Complete denial that mb has done anything wrong despite the evidence above, not to mention a refusal to practice what you preach. You go on an on about AGF, but refuse to retract a bad-faith accusation. Your refusal to admit any fault speaks volumes of your maturity. I retracted my edits, reverted my edits, and admitted fault in the matter. You however have yet to admit your own fault.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although a year might be enough. -- Avenue (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you disclose the fact, as noted above, that you've been in contact with this user for awhile? The above, per what I just said, should be taken with a grain of salt. Funny how all the buddies of Mb are jumping to her defense, but failing to disclose their relation regarding her, while all the victims of her attacks are disclosing what is relevant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so in my !vote on your proposal below. --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my !vote: I think any interaction ban should also forbid them both from commenting about the other user, including in user space, and from reporting the other user for policy violations. If it's important, someone else will do it. --Avenue (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems that Divide and rule is in order. Broccoli (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, overdue. This has generated nothing except drama. Tim Song (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a year - it will be better for everyone (including them) if they just start ignoring each other. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 month ban on interaction between Mbz1 and Daedalus969

The title sums it up. Half a year.

• Support - This whole thing is causing me too much stress.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good idea to give it a break, but forever assumes things will never change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block and 3 month probation for user interaction for Mbz1

Luckily, the uninvolved admins that placed the first week long ban in regards to the previous debacle were able to see the obvious, that Mbz1 was sniping and personally attacking others. As this user continues to personally attack other users, giving barnstars that insult them, and accuse them of racism on their userpage, directly after the week-long ban expired, something sterner than a slap on the wrist is required, which really, is all they have been getting. This is obviously why they think they can continue; because they can't be touched.

• Mbz1 is blocked 1 week
• After this block expires, this user is placed on probation for 3 months regarding user interaction
  • Should the probation be violated¹, user is blocked for 1 week
    • These blocks will escalate in time, with the minimum being 1 week if user continues to violate¹ their probation
    • If this user continues to violate¹ their probation, the probation is reset, with the starting time being the last violation¹ the user has committed.

1: Personal attack, taunt, snipe, award of any kind referring to users Mb has been in conflict with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obviously, as I am the writer, I support for the reasons outlined above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the condition that Daedalus969 does not interact with Mbz1 during the probationn period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine with that. No reverts. No messages to them. No replies to them. I will only report edits that I may think are attacks to the acting admin in this matter. I will only say that I think they are attacks, and I will not push for any blocks on the matter, nor warnings, nor extensions, nor bans. I will simply report, and leave them to make up their own mind on the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your over-reaction to what you perceive as personal attacks has been a big part of the problem here, in my view, so you proposing to keep watch over Mbz1 seems counterproductive at best. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have over-reacted a week ago, but this discussion is not about a week ago. It is about their most recent problematic edits. Further, why don't you disclose your full involvement here, before I do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to see personal attacks where I don't, as in your interaction with Breein1007 below. On the scope of this discussion, I think the situation has been building for a while, and needs to be viewed as a whole. On disclosure, see my !vote below. -- Avenue (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Daedalus969, your behaviour in this whole childish escapade has been much more deplorable than that of Mbz1. That includes comments you have made in this very AN/I report. Struck out or not, it is clear that you are unable to handle yourself appropriately and interact nicely with other editors. There is no sane reason that Mbz1 should be blocked for a week and then put on probation while you face no consequences. I will consider supporting proposals that include sanctions on Mbz1 if these proposals include harsher sanctions on you. There is really no doubt that if you compare the comments and edits that the two of you have made in relation to this issue, you have been way more out of line. Breein1007 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what precisely is more deplorable than insulting, sniping, name calling, and taunting? Really, I would like to know. By the way, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Sanctions are enacted upon regarding the strength of the argument, not the strength of the vote numbers. I haven't been the one attacking other users. And really, do not bring up AGF until you apologize for your bad-faith accusation of deliberately twisting the facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let your comment speak for itself. I'm done with this discussion... I've put in my votes with good reason. It's not up to you to judge the strength of my argument. That would be silly! :) Unless any new developments are made in this report (ie: new proposals), I'm done commenting. Breein1007 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you're going to accuse me of something without base. Nice job there. My actions are worse than calling people names, sniping them, insulting them, and taunting them. The same is true of your own argument, where you accuse me of worse than an NPA and refuse to back it up. WP:BURDEN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I was done commenting, and I really wish I could let this go, but it's just too good..... WP:BURDEN??? You want me to find a reliable source stating that you attacked other editors? .................. lol. Breein1007 (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take back your personal attack. I haven't personally attacked anyone. Your baseless accusation, as defined by NPA, is a personal attack. Lastly, a diff is a reliable source in this matter. The point of bringing up burden is that you have not provided any proof of your accusations. So really, put up or shut up. If you refuse to provide diffs, it will surely speak volumes to the reviewing admins here of the strength of your argument; less harsher restrictions on the user who has personally attacked others and continues to do so, you laughing at my request for evidence, your refusal to admit any fault regarding your bad-faith accusations... the list goes on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you're trying to play the neutral, you sure aren't showing it. Less harsh sanctions for the one who continues to attack others, despite continued warnings. Right. Good luck with that argument.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am obviously deeply involved in this dispute and I understand if my opinion is thus taken with a grain of salt, but I am personally amazed and bewildered at how many personal attacks Mbz1 has gotten away with whilst refusing to apologize or even acknowledge wrongdoing. Sometimes I just don't understand Wikipedia. This is one of them.

It seems that the lack of any consequences has emboldened her, as Malik put it, and now she has moved beyond attacking myself, Daedalus and other editors and is attacking admins who are merely trying to mediate the dispute. I believe this shows a disrespect of not just the administrators but of the project itself. A block to cool her down and reflect upon how she relates to other people in the project could be useful for everyone, particularly Mbz1 if she wants to continue to edit in the long term.

It's true that she has contributed positively to Wikipedia in the past -- mainly her excellent images -- however her recent edits have become and more weighted towards pursuing drama rather than improving the project. Perhaps a topic ban from Israel-Palestinian issues, which seem to provoke Mbz1 into behaving badly, whilst explicitly allowing her to keep submitting images would be the best of both worlds. Factsontheground (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is no doubt your true objective here, and you and your compadres have no qualms in putting up false information in your attempt to remove her from editing your area [21] or disrupting WP in order to do so. I would just add that this is SOP in this area. The main object is to silence dissenting voices and barring that to tie the editor up so much with defending him or herself that there is no time or inclination to edit. Of course a happy side effect from all of this is that the editor now has a "record" that they can quote later on, as did in Mbz1's Afd, true or otherwise. I urge the greater community to look at the bigger picture. but there should be consequences for false and exaggerated accusations, wikihounding and wikilawyering in the attempt to silence your adversaries. It goes against the very foundation of WP. Stellarkid (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead you refrain from accusing Mbz1 of having a "racist anti-Palestinian agenda"[22] and similar assumptions of bad faith? I think that would help her cool down even better than a block. You have some cheek suggesting that editing Israel-Palestine articles in itself has provoked Mbz1 into behaving badly here. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anything I can do (or anyone else) is going to cool Mzb1 down. Her own misbehaviour is her own responsibility. We've all tried being civil, ignoring her and hoping that she will go away, but that hasn't worked. You can see right there that I was attempting to ignore her so she invaded my talk page.

And as for WP:AGF, the policy is not a one way street, nor does it direct Wikipedians to be blind to others agendas and misdeeds. Why did Mbz1 defend the insertion of hate material into Wikipedia? If anyone inserted material from Stormfront or Jew Watch they would be, rightfully, banned immediately. I don't see how Masada 2000 is any different from those websites. Hate is hate. If she wants me to stop mentioning it and to assume good faith, she can start by apologizing, which she refuses to do for _anything_, and we can start again. Until then I am not going to shut my eyes and pretending nothing is going on. I don't see why I should have to put up with people who view me as less than human because of where I Come from. Factsontheground (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support as per Factsontheground above - I have been the target of a recent campaign by an obsessive and childish attack by Mbz1 and everywhere I go on Wikipedia there is a childish drama with Mbz1 at the centre. Anyone who edits in a manner which contradicts Mbz1's political agenda is attacked by her. Just today I saw her tell an administrator regarding Factsontheground That user should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later. - This is really childish behaviour as far as I am concerned and Wikipedia can do with such agendas of editors to attack other users in this manner. Vexorg (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This from an editor who published false information about Mbz1 at an Afd in a clear attempt to influence the outcome of it. [23]. To this day there have been no consequences for you for posting it and none either for either you or user:factsontheground for attempting to keep this false information in. [24]. Stellarkid (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment to stellarkid - Actually that is not the case. I should have checked the status of MBz1'as sockputtery accusation. I did not continue to attempt to keep the information here whatsoever. On the other hand Stellarkid your unquestioning support of Mbz1's often obsessive and immature disruptive behaviour recently on Wikpedia has not gone unnoticed by the community. Vexorg (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• response to Vexorg. It is in fact the case that you attempted to put false information about Mbz1 in, whether through ignorance or intention, and I take your word it was ignorance. You did not attempt to strike or remove this information yourself when you learned that it was false. Instead it was reverted by Malik Shabizz who reinserted the information here [25](edit summary:"(Undid revision 350080430 by Breein1007 (talk) there's no reason to strike a comment; respond to it instead")), and reverted back to your version here [26] and went on to ignore the admonition he gave to others and to strike your comments here [27]. In fact I think everyone else involved in this ANI discussion attempted to put the libel you initiated back in after Mbz1 and Breein1007 took it out appropriately. Stellarkid (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Breein1007. If blocks are being handed around, I believe Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have acted to escalate this wikidrama at least as much as Mbz1, so blocking her alone would not send the right message. I have worked with Mbz1 recently on a list whose Afd was also a cause of conflict, and I believe she can edit constructively on controversial topics when not being hounded. I have also tried to help defend her against two unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry in the last 2 months. Although I had no real contact with her before that, I've also admired her photography since at least 2007, when I put together a gallery of featured pictures for the Volcanoes WikiProject. So no doubt I am biased too. --Avenue (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It takes two for a tango-and this case just doesn't seem to be any different. Taking Mbz1 out of the context she was acting in will actually miss the point. There are two different approaches to edit on Israel-Palstine/Jewish people related articles. All of the editors involved here, or at the least the very most, editing on very similar articles and many times on the same. It got to this that we virtually have two different "armies" which sometimes warring in different ways on editing. It will take a lot of work to follow the entire history of interactions between Mbz1 and other editors and so on. But if you follow it then you will find that many times she was treated unfairly, with some editors being incivil toward her, buzzing wikidrama around her and so on. So, if someone realy want to be helpful here and to solve this issue once and for all, without getting time and again to the different boards, he/she should review the entire history of interactions any maybe even the history of editing on involved articles. Where there is no respect to wiki rules of editing, all "sore evil" is soon to follow. A lot of work, but the only way to make things better.--Gilisa (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per Gilisa. If Mbz1 is blocked, then I think a few other editors should be block. Grow up a little. Broccoli (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose As I said in my comments above, virtually every "support" vote here is by those who have been involved in content disputes with Mbz1 and have responded by wp:Wikihounding and wp:Wikilawyering in an (concerted) attempt to remove a dissenting and intelligent voice from Israel-Palestine and Jewish related articles by creating this unnecessary wp:Battle. 9/10ths of the diffs presented against her are mild and of the type one would expect from any editor involved in an edit dispute with another, to say nothing of this kind of harassment. I applaud Mbz1 for trying to take it with some attempt at sarcasm and humor. I believe that the suggestion of sanctions are entirely misdirected here. Stellarkid (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising coming from someone who is buddies with the user. Also, if you call insulting others humor, you are grossly mistaken.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the interaction problems are mostly with Daedalus969, so no need for a wider ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked for 24 hrs for disruption

I have blocked Mbz1 for disruption for 24 hours; I strongly advised her to take a short wikibreak a couple of days ago and forgo further disruptive activity and attacks, and the response has been redoubled disruption. I understand the sentiment behind longer blocks but feel that this is a new "first incident" on this particular problem and I'm starting with the lowest tier block per normal policy. The community can of course chose other sanctions in addition to the current block, and interaction bans are probably a good idea.

Regarding one point made above - Part of the reason I am blocking now is that it does not, always, take two to tango. The lead up to this situation was a large scale, multiway content and personal dispute which had multiple parties acting abusively. Since the 24 hr interaction ban earlier this week, the level of personal attack and disruption dropped to the level where admin attention was essentially no longer required, with one exception. Mbz1 continued acting as disruptively and abusively as she had prior to the interaction ban.

The idea that conflict will not happen without someone conflicting back is somewhat ludicrous. Here on Wikipedia we see individuals starting conflicts without provocation all the time, and individuals escalating or continuing conflicts after others step away from them all the time. While true that many or most conflicts involve multiple parties butting heads, that is not always true.

This block is not an assessment of blame for the pre-interaction-ban overall activities, whose origin I cannot reasonably point to in the volume of activity, or a judgement on the underlying content issues, where I feel generally that the extremists on both sides are clearly in the wrong. It's merely an indication that multiple admins felt that the overall incident reached the point where we felt that admin response was appropriate and necessary earlier in the week, and one of the parties did not get the message. If we tell you to put the stick down and deal with the problem as adults, continuing to poke with the stick is not an acceptable response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - Mbz1 has removed the block message from her talk page. That's her right within the user page policy, but admins reviewing the situation will have to check the history to see it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note - in line with Georgewilliamherbert statement above Mbz1 removed the block message and then later after reinserting the block message lied by claiming she'd never removed the Block message and further made an attack at the blocking admin. Considering this attitude she displays I think 24 hours is far too short. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't look like she removed the block message, just GWH's detailed explanation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did remove it. It was the template that wasn't removed. It was gone for 41 minutes. Why would the admin Georgewilliamherbert say it was removed if it wasn't? The edit history easily proves the issue. The removal isn't the problem it's the lying and attacking the the admin that is 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about her removing the explanation -- I'm just saying that it's misleading to claim she lied about removing it, when she never touched the original template. I could make a good case for the "block message" being the template, with the later explanation just being a comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per SarekOfVulcan, the template was not removed. GWH likely made a simple mistake while attempting to ensure that reviewing admins were aware that the template was still available in the history (when it was still visible on the page). Nothing to get heated about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand then that Vexorg in claiming that Mbz1 lied (directly above) is making yet another bad-false accusation against her? Vexorg seems to be able to make one false bad-faith accusation after another with impunity yet Mbz is the one who gets the block? This strikes me as particularly unfair considering that her "disruptive behavior" has all centered on clearing herself of such accusations. "Racist" accusations, "sockpuppetry" accusations, excessive templating of her page by fellow editors etc. Again, I think a fair reading of these accusations at ANI would lead to the blocking of the parties doing the accusing. Stellarkid (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about block templates, but I do feel that using one that says the block was for "repeated abuse of editing privileges", with this wikilinked to Wikipedia:Vandalism, seems inappropriate here. GWH justified the block in his explanation[28] (now removed by Mbz1) in part by saying "there is significant administrator support" here for Daedelus's block proposal above. The only administrator I see supporting it is Malik Shabazz (the initiator of this thread), so this does not seem accurate. I am not contesting the block, but I do invite the blocking admin to improve their communication about it. --Avenue (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed part of this in another discussion on my talk page, but for the record here...

The other admin support for longer blocks I listed is not entirely correct, I misread some of the supports on scanning it. However - that was part of the explanation and context around the block and abuse case, not the reason I blocked. I blocked for disruption. After applying the block, while preparing the block message, I included a bunch of context items including that (mistaken) one.

That would have been a reversible mistake if I were implementing a community sanction proposal, but was only a minor footnote in what I actually did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block message, Template:Uw-block2 is generic. We have a disruption specific one, Template:Uw-toablock but it's for indef disruption blocks only. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If you believe we need a uw-block2 equivalent for disruption to clarify things that's a reasonable argument to make, but we've done with uw-block2 for many years now without that many complaints. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has removed a declined unblock request while the block is still in effect, against policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert, thanks for responding to my concerns above. I should have thought to check your talk page first. --Avenue (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ask the community if the following diffs do not count as WP:harassment : [29],[30],[31][32]? Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a policy violation isn't harassment. As to the mfd, yes, I am going to mfd a page which only serves to attack me and others, with no pending rfc. If there was a pending rfc, I wouldn't care. If there is going to be an rfc, it must be filed within at least a month from the creation of the page. Lists of perceived flaws are not allowed unless they are going to be used in a pending rfc that is filed in a timely manner.

You've already shown you're going to defend this user no matter how many people they insult and attack, instead of telling them that doing such is unacceptable, no matter the reason. But I shouldn't waste my energy on you, you'll just continue to push for harsher punishments on the victims instead of the attacker.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus969, what exactly did you expect? That editors here will reply only on your behalf, slam Mbz1 and push to punish badly your opponent while ignoring your mistakes!? And you did have mistakes, not one. I find your grievances on Stellarkid unwarranted and I realy think that you should see and to be able to accept what was wrong in what you did. On another issue-any decision on blocking each of the sides is strongly preferred to be done by uninvolved admin. --Gilisa (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution?

Could an uninvolved administrator please consider whether this can be resolved somehow? For instance, there seems to be unanimous support for a ban on interaction between two editors, the only dispute being about how long it should last. Perhaps this would fall under the general sanctions for Israel/Palestine articles, since this dispute arose around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). The discussion here has subsided into low-level sniping, but I am concerned that things will flare up again if nothing is done besides the contentious[33] block above.

A disclaimer: I am not uninvolved here, so please do not take my word for any of this. --Avenue (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, one of these editors is currently blocked, the other is on a self-enforced wikibreak. Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1's block has expired, but I don't think she's made any edits since then. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an indefinite interaction ban between these two are in order, following the consensus above. That being said, I would prefer if an admin who is not involved in this issue sanctions this, to avoid further controversy. —Dark 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody seems to agree that these too should not interact for a while, so be it. The arbcom decision [34] allows for such restrictions. Therefore, Daedalus969 and Mbz1 are to avoid all direct interaction for 3 months. I know the consensus was for an indefinite ban; however, I'm not comfortable with that. If any other admin wants to extend the ban, by all means. Dave (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Dave's decision. Seems to be the best, we will re-evaluate (if necessary) after a 3 month period. —Dark 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this as well. Unomi (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dave. -- Avenue (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – WP:AMERICANFOOTBALLPLAYERWHOCANNOTBENAMED himself.

Hi, I am being hounded by NawlinWiki at [35]. Basically, I need to get in touch with Jimno Wales to discuss some personal issues. Unfortunately, NawlinWiki has decided to appoint himself judge jury and executioner, describing my messages as "threats" (which they certainly are not!) [36], [37] & [38]. He then won't let me appeal and argue my case, (by blocking me, declining unblock requests [39] & [40] and protecting my talk pages [41]), and has reverted any "toned-down" (there were no threats in the first place!) messages as I have "abused multiple accounts" (which is extremely unfair given that i was never given a chance to do this with the first IP I was on). Please can someone sort this out, and let Mr Wales know that I need to speak to him urgently in private. Thanks, 79.75.181.144 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales has e-mail contact info on his user page. If this is a personal matter between the two of you why don't you try that?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We have 'issues'", "I must warn you that it is not in your interests to ignore me, as I will not simply vanish". Blatant harassment. Jimbo's a big boy and I'll leave it up to him whether or not he wants to take it seriously. But as for Wikipedia, blocked this IP for 1 year. --Smashville^talk 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Tiscali IPs, hopping from one to another -- seems like User:The abominable Wiki troll to me. In any case, as Smashville says, this is clearly harassment and trolling (given that Jimbo's user page expressly states how to contact him). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

79.75.128.0/17 blocked temporarily for abusing admins ;) –MuZemike 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean abusing editors... Surely there's no special penalty if you're abusing an admin? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no gain in abusing the rank-and-file editors. Abusing admins can get their bits revoked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't read that last post without seeing a double entendre, probably unintended. Although I wonder which party will have their bits revoked -- the user or the Admin? And just how painful would that be? -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are probably aware, British Airways staff are going on strike as of midnight UTC, 20 March. The article is likely to get a lot more attention than usual in the next few days. Therefore, as a damage limitation exercise, would it be worth semi-protecting the article for 10-14 days, or should we just keep a weather eye on it and only protect if IP vandalism becomes too much of a problem? Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote "weather eye". Watchlisting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch, use the same policy as we do for the mainpage. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more reason to protect this than any other article in the news. I've watchlisted it as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off watchlisting the article on your own birthday if you want to stop drive-by vandals. BA? Sod 'em. Disclaimer: this user mey or may not be friendly to a greater or lesser extent with certain former directors of operations at certain airlines, with whom he may or may not be a frequent flyer anyway and of whom he may or may not have formed the view that they are a shower of dunces. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with guy, they're a bunch of twats and deserve everything coming to them 86.180.144.161 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

When I look at my watchlist and hover over the link to ANI I get an image of a nazi flag. Someones idea of being funny and making a point? I can't see where it is coming from. Could someone nuke it? JodyB _talk 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use the popups script if that helps. JodyB _talk 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popups shows the first image on a page. The only image on this page (currently) is a tiny Nazi flag in a post by Baseball Bugs, where he was trying to be humorous (not describing admins, but making a point about someone accusing admins of being nazis). I don't see the need for nuking it, but don't see the need for keeping it, so now that I've provided info, I'll sit back and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the popup feature, as I have all popups disabled. But maybe there should be some kind of image at the top; maybe the one to the right, maybe another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't call other editors Nazis (except when they actually are self-described Nazis) as that's too much of a cliche even for my low standards. Morons, idiots, vandals, trolls, socks, and even (gasp) upstarts, ja. Nazis, nein. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something has gone awry. It is supposed to show admins eating babies whilst whacking the block-button at speeds which would cause RSI in anyone else. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, since it bugged you, I've removed the image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of replacing it with File:Monster Raving Loony Party.png. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding out for this --Ludwigs2 16:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, Wikipedia shouldn't be taking a stand between Narutards and Luffites. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I thought, incorrectly, someone was making a point. But since that was not the case it doesn't matter one way or the other. JodyB _talk 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems centre on scroll saw but there have been issues on other articles. Relevant activity began a few days ago with links to various Fox Chapel Puplishing sites added by 173.163.134.97. These were generally not strong enough to justify ELs anyway but Dig shows that the hostname for that IP address is gateway.foxchapelpublishing.com, therefore this is a clear conflict of interest and spam which I reverted. Links were subsequently re-added by two other IP editors and reverted each time.

Then user:Gloden, apparently a new account, also began adding these links. Other links have been added apparently in an attempt to conceal the relevant links but the link to www.scrollsawer.com always remains.

This has been too slow burning to trigger a 3RR (although it is arguably still edit warring) but the persistent re-adding of these links and their inappropriate nature leads me to believe this matter needs some form of administrative attention even if it is only active monitoring of the issue. CrispMuncher (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where they have added the link since their last warning. I agree, if they add it again, then a block may be in order. Lets see if they respond to the last warning and to this discussion if. I would support a block if they continue from this moment forward. But lets see where this goes... --Jayron32 04:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must say, I was not aware of what in the articles was annoying the bots, or what I thought were bots, so I reverted, and reverted, and reverted. The article in question is weak at best and I am trying to add some meat to the otherwise weak article. I have been looking at other entries where crispmuncher has been repeatedly reverting contributions for a while. I'm still looking into the nature of these edits and the specific history of that editors influence on this article. In the Scroll Saw community, regardless of who owns it, www.scrollsawing.com is a goto "FREE" source for forums and a wide breadth of information. I am not associated with any commercial interests with that site, but in this community, that is where scrollers go. I had started a disscussion on one of their forums about giving this article some depth so that when users are looking to find out a little more about "scroll sawing" they don't get a glossed over simple article that ceases to even discuss the primary project types of the project or give anything more than an association. You can see the discussion of this article on their forum at: http://www.scrollsawer.com/forum/general-scroll-saw/29567.htm. You can see link suggestions by other scroll saw users and etc, and note, this thread began before the first wiki edit.

Adding the most common references in our "circle" seemed to be the best way to quickly add some depth to the aricle. Adding aricle to describe terminology (for a better understanding element of that craft), takes a greater amount of time. To appease the "gods", I've ripped out the www.scollsawing.com link. This type of attitude toward contributers is not what made wikipedia great. It is a shame for crying out loud. After all this time, it's no wonder it is what it is.

Randy Gloden Randy@gloden.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over the guideline on external links, specifically the section on links normally to be avoided. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the site guys. Your edits over time has not resulted in a strong article, though I'm sure they line up with standard. It would, there is very little content . . . . The last revert from ollie rolled back additionas again, and www.scrollsawer.com wasn't in the list this time.

Most links originally listed would have been familiar to those in the scroll saw community. The organization SAW doesn't have critical mass and shouldn't be considered a primary site to represent the craft, but that is one of two sources you left. Are you kidding me? As the lone link, it kind of gives a false/promotional impression doesn't it? That is "OK" with el policies I guess.

Are there any of the original links you guys are going to allow to stick?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complaint about the way this has been handled. My original goal was to try to strengthen the scroll saw article. I'm new at this, and broke some rules, reverting, links to forums, etc. and etc. Thats a given, and I don't deny it. I wasn't sure why the article was being reverted, nothing was showing up on the talk page for the article nor on my own. If you look at my edits, my first guess was that the commercial patterns link was the issue and you can see that and a few others I removed in an attempt to please the bot and wiki gods. While looking back through the history, I finally noticed a refernce to www.scrollsawer.com and then I removed that link. Ollie reverted again.

I did not revert again as evidently, I'm getting hit from a different angle now. So, having stopped the reverts, and well on my way to getting a better handle on the policies, I start a talk page, hoping to be able to explain why, in this specific situation, the original link in question should be reconsidered. So while no further reverts are happening, instead of staying with the topic, CrispMuncher and Olie adds threats of blacklisting or banning based on revert that had already ceased. Really? Are we all under the same rules of conduct? Does this reflect vindictiveness, or it that just the way things happen here? Gloden (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crispmuncher: communication consisting of one welcome template and edit summaries is rather thin. Sometimes there is a learning curve with newbies. Many don't even see your edit summaries. They just see that what they added is somehow missing, and they don't know about the history function or diffs. We need to Assume good faith and not bite them. Gloden: yes, this could have been handled better. I'd suggest starting a new section on the talk page to suggest changes to the article if you have a conflict of interest because our policy on sources does not disregard who owns the site. If the site is notable enough, then it will eventually be added by someone not connected to the site. Auntie E. (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a talk page. For clarification, my only connection to the site is as a reader and forum contributer. I have not reverted since I understoof the situation and have tried to present a case for inclusion and to discuss how this site relates back to the guiedlines and whether or not there is any flexibility within the guidelines to still add the site because of the diversness of content and value it would add as a reference to anyone seeking to learn more about the topic. If the topic is discussed civilly, and the rules strictly forbid inclusion of any site hosted by a commercial entity, or a site hosting a forum (as does one of the only two current links in the ariticle), then that is fine. We had a rational discussion and determined that such and such action can not be tollerated because of absolutes in rule such and such.

But calling me a spammer because I have participated in pivital in the scroll saw community. In my talk page: "As I said, I refuse to allow you to portray yourself as the wronged party being silenced by the "Wiki Masters" (your words, not mine). Ultimately you are a spammer pushing a site that you have a personal involvement in. Let us not forget that. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)"

So, Ultimately I'm a Spammer? Very nice guys. I'm done, you win, I'll not have any dealing with Wikipedia going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just preface this by saying that this is my first ANI report, and if I'm in the wrong place, let me know. Between 05:00 and 05:06 UTC, Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs) created 83 articles, appearing to go alphabetically through every species of the Conus genus of sea snails. This user started with Conus anemone and got to Conus capitaneus before Tim Song blocked the account on suspicion of an unapproved bot. At the moment, these articles are just sitting there, each one identical but for the species names. As I understand it, species are inherently notable, but surely all these articles can't be left sitting there like this? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tratra22395768 - unlicensed bot and possible sock (it rhymes!)

User:Tratra22395768 appears to be running an unlicensed copy of User:Ganeshbot, which started work this morning writing articles like this. Tratra22395768 then started churning out perfect copies of Ganeshbot's editing style at a rate of 50 in approximately 4 minutes - WP:DUCK says a bot. He may also be a sock of User:ChinaRailwayENGED, who wrote articles like this until vanishing on 13 March after a block for not heeding warnings about unreferenced new articles. Tratra22395768, on the other hand, has been writing articles which look remarkably similar. Following a request (in order to stop the deluge of new articles) User:Tim Song has blocked Tratra22395768 until he can explain himself. This ANI post is to see:

1. Is a stand-alone block warranted for Tratra22395768's actions
2. Is there enough evidence to justify sockpuppet accusations here
3. If so, WP:DUCK or WP:SPI?

Many thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with the above thread on the same user. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference. In Tratra's articles, the {{PAGENAME}} was not subst'd. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block -- unauthorized bots are not allowed. The article subjects are very different from User:ChinaRailwayENGED, but that's after a somewhat cursory glance. Not enough for me to say WP:DUCK. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, I had left this user a message about this, but got no reply, despite it being clear that he had read the message. WP:BOTPOL says we can assume he's a bot, and unless he's going to reply to the concerns on his talk page, I'd say we should. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully Endorse block. Looks like the block worked, it got his attention and he finally piped up, explaining in his unblock request: "want to fill red links and let number of articles goes up". Sounds to me like all this user cares about is watching the article count rise with absolutely no regard to quality, as if he's trying to get a high score in some video game. This is not improving the encyclopedia. -- œ^™ 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. I am still working on getting my bot approved for this task. Can these articles be deleted quickly before someone makes changes? I am still revising the data that will be used to create these. So the Ganeshbot articles will be different from what this user created. Please let me know. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. They seem to be perfect copies of the same content. Ganeshbot creates articles that have unique references. Here is the list of articles that Ganeshbot created for the bot trial. Please note the reference link will be different in each of those. So all the content from this user needs to be considered spam and speedy deleted. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the bot-generated articles. Nakon 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nakon. Phew! Ganeshk (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have been following this long drama (including both user's name changes), you will know that any interactions between these two are rather - poisonous. I have long recommended an interaction ban between these two. SRQ was the first to accept, but I did not proceed further. In declining a recent DoS unblock, I reiterated the suggestion. DoS has also now accepted, as per my talkpage. It appears that all that is left is to set out terms and conditions. I'm about to be a little difficult to get ahold of, so I would ask the community to use their wisdom to hash this out. I am about to advise both users about this proposal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is long, and I apologize for that - but I truly believe there is more to this than meets the eye, and would appreciate anyone commenting on this to read everything I have written here before commenting - Thanks

Disagree IMO, the only "drama" still existing between us is on JoyDiamond/DocOfSoc's end. Further, it is my opinion that DOS doesn't understand the depth of what an interaction ban really means because she doesn't even understand some of the most basic aspects of Wikipedia standards, conduct, and rules. She saw that there is an interaction ban between another editor and myself, ergo, she jumped on that bandwagon thinking it would solve what she sees as issues between the two of us so she can be free to edit articles as she wishes. I've watched her game the system time and again with her reverts of my edits just to make a point and essentially mark what she sees as her "territory" - IOW, she has ownership issues. I freely admit I have had trouble in certain areas of working in WP. But where DOS is concerned, as long as she stays at only one article in WP, she will never become a team player within the project and edit peacefully in WP. DocOfSoc is essentially a one-article account. She has dabbled with a couple of other articles, but her main focus and reason for being in WP appears to be the Charles Karel Bouley article (locked again because of the edit warring she initiated). Everytime the article is unlocked, she goes back to the same edit-warring behavior as before the lock and still has the same lack of understanding about simple WP processes, procedures, standards, rules, etc - not the least of which is how to work *with* other editors and discuss major article changes on the talk page first. I contend that if an administrator would actually DO something about her obvious lack of general WP understanding and commit to mentoring her at other articles, then a lot of DOS's problems in WP would go away. Everytime her favorite article (the Bouley article) gets locked, DOS goes away - only to come back as ignorant about WP editing as she was prior to the lock because she doesn't do any substantive editing while the lock is in effect. If someone would take the time to encourage her, help her, and show her the "WP way", she would be a lot happier here (IMO). I've tried numerous times to point certain things out to her (last night being the latest) but invariably she takes offense - no matter how matter-of-fact my comments to her are. I can see why, with the history between her and I at the Bouley article, she might initially see my comments to her as an affront. But since no one else is stepping up to the plate to do anything to help her out, then ...???

I think the real heart of the matter here is that no one else says boo to her until she complains about something. So far, the only person trying to help her on a regular basis to "get" Wikipedia is me. I've been doing it - not to irritate her as she probably thinks - but to try and lend a hand and help her so that WP relations between the two of us might improve. Even when she is in the midst of edit warring, no one says anything to her about it but me. The Bouley article she works on just gets locked and in the end, she doesn't grasp that her negative actions played into getting the article closed down again. Other than me, no one says anything to her - and I know that there are admins and other editors watching what's going on. She's getting set up for failure everytime the article is unlocked - that isn't fair to her and it does nothing to promote anything positive for her WP experience or the article or the project as a whole. Last night at her talk page I tried to explain some basic WP concepts and editing standards to her as well as point out she was in danger of violating 3RR and she immediately cried "stalking". Apparently, that was when she started talking about an interaction ban again. But where were the admins and other editors who were watching the whole thing transpire? Why didn't *someone else* step up and explain the things to her that I tried to?

I can leave her alone from now on when it comes to trying to give her advice - but I don't need a formal interaction ban in place with DOS. The fact remains, however, that *someone* needs to help DOS out and explain things to her (isn't that one of the things administrators are supposed to be for more than just being WP Cops?). She's asked for help several times in the past, and no one has really taken the time to work with her on a continued basis. Just band-aids and blocks here and there. Like I said in the beginning, a lot of DOS's Wiki-problems would go away if she would try editing more articles and have a mentor available to help her do that so she can grow as a Wikipedian. I can commit to leaving her alone, can someone commit to working with her? Wouldn't *that* be a better, more proactive solution than just putting another reactionary band-aid ban in place? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another interaction ban proposed involving SRQ, and I doubt the last. I'm not quite as familiar with the SRQ/DocOfSoc rivalry as I am with certain other SRQ-involved rivalries, but it seems to me that if it takes a few interaction bans before everyone realizes the common denominator, so be it. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:08, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • "I don't need a formal interaction ban in place" -- then why in the world can't you just leave her alone?????? All I'm getting from the above is "IDON'TGETITIDON'TGETITIDON'T..." you get the idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Support interaction ban, and I could get behind something more drastic if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed my statement, "I can commit to leaving her alone" (although I don't know how you could have since it's at the very end of what I wrote and in bold letters). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Equazcion on this. This editor, SRQ, already has one interaction ban in place and wanted more of us to be included, including myself. I am not a neutral in this as I have had contact with both editors. My contact so far, though brief, with DOH have been pleasant and she has be receptive to ideas and help given her. When will more be accomplished about all of this is the question. I support this I guess, if that's all that is available. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a member is causing this much trouble to warrant two interaction bans, why not just ban the user. Obviously they are causing more disruption to the project than anything. I'm sure people don't want to have to keep babysitting adults that don't know how to positively interact with each other. What does it take to get banned here? —Mike Allen 23:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented on any of the numerous threads on this editor to date as far as I know because, frankly, I have better things to do. I'm inclined to agree with MikeAllen, however I think this interaction ban is worth a go but if it doesn't solve the problem, I think we need to get more drastic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced anything needs to be done just yet, but after talking with SRQ on her talk page, I get the impression that she needs a mentor. I would once again encourage her to revise her watchlist and focus on creating and improving article content, or get involved helping with routine maintenance tasks. Anything would be preferable to the constant conflicts and disputes. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, I did not receive any notification of a proposed interaction ban, as you mentioned in your first paragraph, as I would have agreed immediately! SRQ has stalked me to two other obscure articles, (Margaret Clark and John Tran), edit warred without repercussions, hence totally discouraging me from editing other articles in which I am interested. When I reported the obvious stalking, nothing was done. I have never been extended any *friendly* advice, good faith, civility or any other "pillars" from SRQ. As portrayed in the above long tirade by SRQ, one would wonder how I made it thru 14 years of higher education and post graduate school. Would "valedictorian" be peacocky? Thank all of you for your input. I would appreciate the opportunity to just be a "Happy Editor!" DocOfSoc (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never "stalked" DOS - when she came here to complain I was stalking her a few months ago, she was told quite plainly by more than one admin that I was *not* stalking her. For DOS to state that I have discouraged her from editing others articles is unfounded and ridiculous. If she truly wanted to edit other articles, she would - she's never had trouble doing what she wants and having the freedom to do so in other instances here in WP. That she doesn't edit other articles only further proves that hers is a one-article account. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's further proof the DOS seriously is in need of a WP mentor - this was just posted to my talk page:

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction_ban_between_User:SkagitRiverQueen_and_User:DocOfSoc regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank youDocOfSoc (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would she post this on my talk page when BWilkins posted the very same thing there early this morning (and it's still there)? Answer: because she still doesn't get how WP works (but, at least she is proving my point that she needs someone to mentor her). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now she's just placed the same notice on her own talk page [42]. In case you missed that, it's an AN/I notice to *herself* on her own talk page (and with her own sig). <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And she's now added the same thing [43] to BWilkins' talk page (the administrator who started this thread and put notices on both of our talk pages already here[44] and here [45] ... <another shrug> -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I just got this on my talk page from DOS (with the edit summary stating "Leave me alone") -

Notice that I posted as required has been deleted.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

"Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

*Again* please stop following my every move. The above states that your comments on the Admin noticeboard are inappropriate. As at least two admins have stated; Why don't you Just leave me alone?DocOfSoc (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff for the above is here [46] Quod erat demonstratum. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use (notice) to do so." DocOfSoc (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this to DOS on her talk page along with some other information that should help her. [47] As for SRQ being the one to comment on all of this, she shouldn't be since her comments are taken as being agressive and unhelpful to DOS. I do think though that the above comments are exactly what some of the problems are here. SRQ is too agressive when it comes to anything DOS writes or does. She needs to leave this editor alone, period. I would like to also point out that in the case of the other editor that there is an interaction ban now in effect, SRQ has managed to go to 26 articles, last count, of that editor too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have been dismayed by SRQ's treatment of Crohnie. I'm at a loss at understanding why SRQ is so aggressive, but if SRQ could take a step back from future conflicts and focus on encyclopedia matters, I'm sure everything will work out for the best. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have been dismayed at Crohnie's treatment of me since we first encountered each other - she has an ax to grind with me and, IMO, that's the only reason she's posting here on this matter and has now suddenly befriended DOS. In fact, she recently told DOS, "Please just ignore SRQ as I believe the interaction is going to go into affect". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got approached by DOS on my talk page. I have been trying to help in a minimal way because I do not have the time or the good health to volunteer to be her mentor. As for the quote SRQ makes, yes I said this but it's out of context a bit. I was giving advice to DOS and yes I think she should start ignoring you so things don't esculate. I think this interaction may go into affect so the best thing she can do for herself is to concentrate on edits and ignore you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm-hmm. You were "approached by DOS" after you suddenly, out of nowhere, started editing the Bouley article the same day the article was unlocked after being locked for three months[48]. I've always been curious how that happened and why... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you before, I came across this article while doing vandal patrol using the link on the left called 'recent changes'. I also use this to find new articles to work and the Bouley article appeared on the list. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people find articles they want to edit but see that they're protected, they'll often watch them and wait til they're unprotected. The fact that you see someone suddenly make an edit to an article when its protection expires doesn't indicate anything, other than that's what tends to occur naturally. There's no reason to suspect anything there, whatever you might be saying you suspect. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:12, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting explanation, however, it doesn't really wash because yours was the first edit on the article since December 21, 2009. Exactly what were you vandal patrolling on an article that hadn't been touched for three months? I find it further curious that out of all of the articles that had 'recent changes' made to them at that hour, the only edits you had made prior to the edits at the Bouley article were one revert at an article you frequent and a number of user talk page exchanges. Seems to me that if you really were doing "vandal patrol", your edits would reflect that fact. What your edit history at that time reveals is that you made no significant edits (vandal patrolling or otherwise) before *or* after your edits to the Bouley article immediately after it was unlocked. Like I said, your explanation doesn't wash. My opinion is that you targeted the Bouley article in order to "stir the pot" with me and start a fight. I say this because of the evidence of your editing history at that time and the fact that you have rarely (if ever) demonstrated WP:AGF with me. And that takes us back to that ax you have to grind with me, Crohnie... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She said she came across the article during recent changes patrol. She didn't say when that happened, let alone that it was right when the protection was lifted, or even sometime during the protection period. She could've begun watching it before that time. Crohnie doesn't start fights with you, or with anyone, in my experience. She was actually maintaining an excessively nice demeanor with you for an excessive period of time originally, as I see she generally does with everyone, and put off criticizing your actions far longer than I or anyone I know would reasonably have done. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:26, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has been on the receiving end of Crohnie's incivility and her continued grinding ax, I don't see it that way at all. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not have to explain myself to you though I did try. If you remember, I posted to your talk page recently to thank you for your help. How many people are you going to assume bad faith with today? [49] I think I'm done here for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as fellow Wikipedians, we are all accountable to each other. Further, I note that above you are accusing me of bad faith while snarkily asking me "how many people are you going to assume bad faith with today"...? Wow - talk about bad faith and incivility. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support DOS comments, above, on how she's been discouraged from editing other articles, due to perceived stalking on the part of SRQ. SRQ denies having stalked DOS, but the perception of stalking remains, and the edit logs seem to support DOS's assertion...

In September, during a particularly nasty edit war over Charles Karel Bouley, SRQ started following DOS around Wikipedia, and copying DOS's communications with other editors to her talk page. Take a look at SRQ's edit history starting September 21st.[50]

September 23rd, DOS posted an administrative request to her talk page, asking for help to stop SRQ from following her around Wikipedia.[51] A few hours later, I asked SRQ why she was hounding DOS.[52] SRQ responded, denying that she was hounding DOS, and claiming that, in fact, DOS was hounding her.[53]

Note that I had previously requested a lock on the article, to stop the warring. BlackKite obliged, locking the article for three days.[54] Unfortunately, as soon as it was unlocked, the warring started again. So BlackKite locked it for ten days. Soon as it was unlocked, you guessed it. Locked again. This time for a month. Only this time it wasn't DOS and SRQ, it was SRQ and Regisfugit, who seemed intent on harassing SRQ.

During this block SRQ went off and worked on a series of other articles. DOS, on November 2nd, started working on John Tran and Margaret Clark. November 6th, the Karel article unlocked. And the warring started again. This time, BlackKite locked it for three months.[55]

And then, on November 9th, SRQ started editing the aforementioned Margaret Clark and John Tran articles -- articles she'd never touched until DOS started working on them. This kicked off yet another round of edit warring, and an AN/I from DOS, against SRQ, for harassment, edit warring, and hounding.[56]

February 8th, the Karel article unlocked again. And the latest round of edit warring began. February 18th, DOS edited Ultimate Revenge, adding a comment about Karel having been on the show.[57] SRQ immediately reverted the edit.[58] Again, another article she hadn't previously touched.

As Bwilkins has said, these editors are toxic to one another. Each routinely accuses the other of bias, POV, and COI. SRQ has accused DOS of sanitizing the article under Karel's direction, while DOS has accused SRQ of bashing Karel in Internet discussion groups, and bringing that bias to Wikipedia. Each perceives wrong-doing on the part of the other, and I see no end in sight. This has been going on for over a year, and needs to stop. -FeralDruid (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, FeralDruid's compendium above leaves out some important points that only shows bias rather than the truth. Yes, it's true that when DOS and I started edting at the Bouley article at the same time I was doing some stupid things - I did engage in edit warring, I did edit contentiously, and it was wrong. While the Bouley article was locked for three months (the first time), however, I took the time to learn more about how Wikipedia works and did a lot of introspection about my Wiki-relationship with DOS. Yes, I did edit other articles - but that's nothing new with me. I have been editing WP since 2006 - I've created articles, I've uploaded photos that are used in WP, I've made significant contributions to a number of articles. I was an active Wikipedian for a long time before these problems with DOS came up. The picture that FD is painting of me not being active is not accurate. DOS, on the other hand, has (as I stated yesterday) only dabbled at a few other articles - and yes, I did see she was editing those articles and edited some of the stuff she did. Why? Because they were poor edits. Even when DOS brought her "stalking" complaint here, she was told by more than one admin that (a) my edits to her edits were appropriate, and (b) I wasn't stalking her and to just move on. DOS's edit to the Ultimate Revenge article was also warranted - it was a bad edit that highlighted "Karel" (Charles Karel Bouley), was poorly done, and made a claim that was not referenced. If memory serves, I noted in the edit summary that there needed to be a reference attached to the statement about Bouley. AFAIK, to date, no one has changed or challenged the edit.

As for the claim that we each accuse the other of "bias, POV, and COI" - yep, I do sincerely believe that DOS's edits to the Bouley article are rife with "bias, POV, and COI". In fact, DOS is most definitely guilty of all of those - she's a personal friend of Charles Karel Bouley (the article subject) and her edits and attempts to skew and sanitize the article prove "bias, POV, and COI" because of that friendship time and time again. As I stated previously, she has dabbled at a few other articles, but in essence, DOS is a one article only agenda editor. That I haven't allowed her to move forward with her "pro-Karel" agenda is her biggest beef against me and is a big part of the problem.

I've said I can leave her alone - and will do so without a formal ban in place. I will even stop editing the Tran and Clark articles so that there is no conflict there. But I will not stop editing the Bouley article. I've worked on it for too long (longer than DOS, in fact) and refuse to allow her to turn it into a fan page (as she and Bouley both have attempted to do on many occasions). Beside that, DOS and I are essentially the only ones who have edited that particular article for quite a while. If there is an interaction ban in place, when she edits with her usual POV and COI, I won't be able to revert or change her edits. That's not reasonable and it's non-productive to the article and the project. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To echo what Mike Allen wrote above: SkagitRiverQueen/Wildhartlivie, SkagitRiverQueen/DocofSoc, SkagitRiverQueen/Crohnie. What is the common factor here? WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TRUTH, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, WP:CLUE - what exactly does it take? How many interaction bans are going to be put in place before the obvious is acted on? Some people are just clearly incapable of editing in a collegial manner, and all the interaction bans in the world will not change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is your point here, BMK? I have one interaction ban in place that has been implemented in the last week. One. Since mid-2006 I have made nearly 6000 edits. If the majority of them, as you are contending, have not been made in a "collegial manner" and I am such a terrible, mean and nasty editor as you are also contending, how is it that this one interaction ban proves I am someone who needs to be banned completely from WP? You seem to think you and Mike have the ultimate answer here - can you back up your opinion with something real (or are you just blowing smoke)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De facto community ban?

I just gave up on anything short of a full ban, and blocked SRQ for 1 year. If anyone thinks that this went too far, feel free to unblock without checking with me. If consensus does not override the block, it should be probably considered a community-imposed ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Obviously I agree with this action taken. I think everyone has been patient with her and some even tried hard to help her with her different issues. For those who do not realize, I am definitely considered an involved editor so take what I say with a grain of salt. With that being said, I don't see anything else that would end the many problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enough is enough. We can't give her an interaction ban for everyone she has an issue with. --Rschen7754 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The vast majority of editors don't have any type of interaction ban, and to keep editing here SRQ would likely require several more. I'd have no problem with her returning to editing if she would acknowledge that she is at fault, agree t some very narrow editing restrictions, and get a mentor. AniMate 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - SRQ is now claiming, on her talk page, to have a medical condition -- aspergers syndrome -- which she says (or implies) prevents her from communicating collegially. Regardless of whatever truth there may be to that, it seems impractical to me to make special accommodations for those kinds of claims on Wikipedia. It may be the case, however unfortunate, that people making such a claim will need to find other outlets. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:20, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTTHERAPY, to add to that. --Rschen7754 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per what I said in the last ANI thread regarding SRQ: [59]. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There's a limit to how much time the community is willing to put into resolving one dispute after another. However, if she agrees to AniMate's conditions, I've no problem with her coming back in a month or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: Per above. I just recently came into this, and have been flabbergasted to see how long this has been going on. SRQ has been blocked, and then gets unblocked after having a pity party making an admin feel sorry for her. Finally an admin, SarekOfVulcan, has brought some resolution to this. I just hope we all can get back at contributing to the project without having to be sidetracked by these avoidable and disruptive disputes. Thank you, Sarek. I just hope other admins feel the same way and support your decision. —Mike Allen 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Regardless of any personal issues or conditions she's claimed, Wikipedia has turned into a battleground for her and anyone who crosses her path. I'd support an unblock somewhere down the line if she ever calms down, but for now, it's a good idea to prevent further disruption. Also, last time she was blocked, SRQ continued her conflicts at great length on her talk page. As that kind of behavior obviously doesn't do anything to calm down the situation, I'd advise an admin keep an eye on the page in hopes of the block having the desired effect. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Nothing more we can do at this point. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See cross wiki adits - all are vulgar personal attacks (nazi, homo, fascist etc., just like on other wikis). Pls block, -jkb- 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs)

thx, -jkb- 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs)

He's blocked on this wiki. Try the Polish wiki? There's not much we can do. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user here on the English wiki, and he's already blocked on the German wiki. I deleted his edits here, too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on multiple wikis, try Meta wiki. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been locked by the stewards. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Canonical case of WP:ROUGE, even spelled correctly

Resolved

 – User:Researcher88 has continued past warning and got blocked for disruption. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Skäpperöd (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Developing an article in a sandbox does not preven co-operative mainspace editing. In another editor has an additional source they can always expand the article once created. Personally, I dislike creating stubs, and aim for at least a C class article wherever possible. Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

 – Deleted per CSD G7 by User:Tim Song. --Taelus (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]