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

Ozguroot (talk · contribs) has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users to a very charged discussion (Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport). The users contacted all have commented on one of the two pages previously, and all in opposition. None of the editors who had supported the compromise were contacted. It only takes a brief search for the names of editors canvassed on Talk:Passport to see how methodically they were picked for their views. Considering the fact that this discussion was previously only held between three users, this has the potential to completely undermine days' worth of discussion, perhaps even destroy the extremely precarious compromise reached. Ozguroot has previously canvassed two users to the discussion, in a foreign language, and was subsequently repeatedly pointed to WP:CANVASS (read from my "03:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" edit to Talk:Passport) - there is simply no excuse, and I feel a warning is insufficient in light of the irreparable damage done to 160kb of discussion held on Talk:Passport over the last few weeks.

It has been raised on ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Passport-related_edit_war) that Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet due to the similarity between his editing patterns and those of another sock-master, as well as his strange out-of-the-blue editing history. The possibility was never properly investigated.

Diffs: 16 Jan 09 canvassing:

1. Kerem Ozcan (translation: Google)
2. Kaygtr (translation: Google)

Today's canvassing:

1. Vmenkov
2. Jake Wartenberg
3. Valenciano
4. Rave92
5. Qwerta369
6. Tomi566
7. El Otro
8. Pryde 01
9. Gaston28
10. Philip200291
11. Tetromino
12. Bonus bon
13. Glenfarclas
14. Sky Harbor

And one in a foreign language, also from today:

1. Ajdamania2 (translation: Google)

One of the users above (Pryde 01) even launched a very scathing personal attack on the talk pages of me and another user and was subsequently given an only-warning by an administrator.

It pains me to report Ozguroot right after he had posted his very possibly first rational reply, and I would like to note that this is not an attempt to kill discussion, there is another very committed editor (Avala) with which my discussion on the subject matter continues, but I feel as though I've been wasting my effort only to be toppled by simple brute-force numeric supremacy. My Mediation Request has not yet been taken up by a mediator, and I am not sure what to do. Considering the fact every oppose has been notified, would it be prudent for me to canvass all the support votes, in an effort to return balance to the façade of discussion being held at Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport? Action against Ozguroot, as well as advice on how to proceed with the discussion, would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the editors of the articles in subject. User:Happenstance could actually do that, instead of me, to notify them and let them know about the change or his "decide", before making over 250 deletions. But he did NOT never tell anyone. They don't know what is happening. Additionally, i am afraid that "Ozguroot has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users."' is totally a lie. When was the first time? I don't remember. I just asked for the opinions of two editors. - If you call this "canvassing FIFTEEN partisan users". Also please have a look at United_States_passport, Ukrainian_passport, its not only about a single editor, none of the articles editors accept your own "decide/consensus". But you ignore their opinions, you insist, insist, insist and delete, delete, delete. They were keeping undoing your changes as well. Is this a consensus, is this a solution? Let's be [serious]. As we see, you deleted the sections of over 250 Wikipedia articles, and you did NOT want NOBODY to get notified before doing so. That's not normal, in my humble opinion. Your reason was: (rm visa-free bloc per consensus on Talk:Passport). But there was NOT such a consensus at all. See Talk:Passport, too many OPPOSE editors there. Which consensus? Shortly, I just asked for their opinions on the matter. It pains me to hear "Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet" only because i asked for the editors opinions, so they could help on that matter, - as we were never reaching a consensus- . Why not to discuss all together, instead of an edit war? Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is my view - Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess on the Passport talk page. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to be being called a "partisan user," as Happenstance calls me above. My handful of edits on this issue do not display one iota of partisanship, and I take this remark as uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. My attempt to smooth it over with Happenstance was not successful; his response was, it's not pejorative, I'm just saying that you're devoted or biased toward one side. That's not at all true, in any sense, and I feel it's appropriate to make my objection here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, rather than notifying me you still had problems with my clarification, you chose to come here without even dropping a line on my talk. And then you say I violated WP:AGF. I have explained my definition of partisan, and I have stated that it was not intended to be pejorative. We clearly have differing definitions of the term. Mine comes straight from the WP:CANVASS policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The total apathy and lack of administrator response to what is a repeated and rather serious violation of a significant behavioural guideline is quite worrying, and could very easily completely undermine weeks' worth of discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've only just hopped onto ANI to read this. Now I can't say whether these are partisan editors, and in fact I don't think that's helpful, but I would have thought that a better way forward would be to file an article RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a Mediation Request would be great, I did not anticipate every opposition-voter to mysteriously materialise and the Request to be summarily ignored by all and sundry. If you review Talk:Passport, you'll see what I had to put up with during this debate, and to not receive one iota of community support against editors who are clearly, repeatedly, and proudly breaking the rules to make their point is extremely disheartening. As the lone editor clinging to policy and precedent, and as the only one making any sort of effort to discuss, I challenge anyone who has read the entirety of the debate at Talk:Passport to tell me Avala and Ozguroot acted appropriately, and that I didn't. So, what am I after at this point? In brief, Ozguroot needs a warning block for canvassing a second time after repeated warnings and explanations of the canvassing policy; and the debate needs a mediator. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A warning block for canvassing? Read the answers again then. Additionally, following your logic, you should also get such a warning because you did exactly the same thing. Even worse. I just wrote them "share your opinion with us". Letting the editors know about a possible future change is not forbidden in Wikipedia, is it? I don't think so. Especially when the editors are in edit wars, when they always undoing your completely persistent section-deletions, and when you don't find any solution/consensus. I really don't understand why you are so angry because i wrote messages to the editors explaining the situation and asked for their opinions. I did not write as "partisan" as your text, though. See what did you write?;

And here is the "Canvassing" from User talk:Happenstance:

1. Hans_Adler
2. TreasuryTag
3. Spartaz
4. Funandtrvl
5. Blue-Haired_Lawyer
6. ArmadniGeneral

They all are the users who have expressed a positive viewpoint, from your "side". Also, do you always call the users "a suspected sockpuppet" who don't agree with you here? Discuss, but fairly, please. Your problem is not to solve the matter, your problem is, obviously, a good ban to me, that's all what you need, you try every single possible thing for that, lies, cheatings, false, fake and incorrect claims, ONLY because i did not agree your unfair section deletions on more than 250 articles, i did not agree that just like the rest other 15 editors.

Also see:

1. "Partisan message"

--Ozguroot (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk for the background to that. And look at the dates of those messages. Upon being urged to by RashersTierney, I dropped notes on the talks of the uncontacted remainder of those who voted in the discussion, which in light of Ozguroot's previous canvassing happened to all represent a certain side. RashersTirney said, on my talk: "To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'" and I happen to agree. I asked whether this is appropriate here, in my first post, and received no reply, I assumed it was OK. I am amazed Ozguroot, of all people is attempting to spin this as a negative. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL.

119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past few weeks, sparring with Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs), and they've been edit-warring on multiple articles. After a recent block, Omirocksthisworld has been toning down his aggression, but there's a lot of bad blood here, and 119. doesn't seem to understand the term "agree to disagree".

Tonight's incident seems to be spread across two articles, at WP:AN3 and WP:RPP respectively. However, while Omi has at least been civil this time, 119. seems to be feeling cheated out of an arms race and is starting to cross over into harassment, issuing ultimatums, copy-and-pasting a 3RR report Omi filed against him, and berating him for "issuing an ultimatum" (actually the bog-standard {{uw-3rr}}). Since I need to head off to bed, could a chummer take over for me? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I was notifying the IP, it was blocked 24h. Depending on his behavior, this thread may have been rendered moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And as I was writing this, ... IP Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but as this IP has only been editing today, I expect we will have this Karchi based editor, using Mobilink-Infinity, back again soon. I'll have a word with Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though personally I have nothing against this editor, the fact that he was not willing to discuss issues or even attempt to reach an agreement really irritated me. At first I just kept reverting his edits hoping that the strange edits would stop or that he would start to attempt to work things out, but I think I made him angrier and he seemed to felt that it was personal. That's when the edit warring issues started and I ended up getting blocked for forgetting Wiki procedure. This time around I reported him, which I think made him feel even more like I was personally against him or something (at least thats what it looks like from his comments on my talk page). I think the main issue with the other editor is that he doesn't know English too well so when I try discussing things with him he doesn't quite understand, and it looks like he is from Pakistan because he was using derogatory words in Urdu on Talk: Younus AlGohar. Since this issue has been ongoing I think I will have to put an RFC tag on the articles that the IP has been having problems with so that this doesn't keep happening. Hopefully things will get better once different neutral editors start discussion on the talk pages. I'm very sorry for my part in all these disruptive editing wars and my mistakes with Wiki procedure. --Omi(☺) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user (who may be Falconkhe?) is today engaged in related behaviour at Sufism. See edit diff, and also earlier article history and talk page comments. Esowteric+Talk 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has just returned as 119.160.36.86 and made the same change to Sufism, possibly to avoid 3RR edit war. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe is also engaged in an edit war with Omirocksthisworld today at Younus AlGohar: see the article history. RAGS International shows a similar history of conflict. Esowteric+Talk 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't blaim me for 119 acts, what you are getting is readers response might be but I should not hold responsible for that.Its true that I have some differences with Omirocksthisworld but it doesn't mean that I was blaming for doing nothing. I always try my best to abide the rules & regulation of wikipedia--Falconkhe (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well I don't know if it was an edit war, but he was removing the references I was adding (hopefully by mistake). His edit summaries on the article history have been confusing though. Anyway, we've been discussing it in Talk:Younus AlGohar and hopefully we can come to an understanding soon. Though I personally don't have anything against Falconkhe myself, his recent edits to Younus AlGohar, RAGS International, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi, and pretty much all the articles/pages related to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi haven't exactly been constructive. Omi(☺) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making inappropriate/abusive comments. Esowteric+Talk 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe, I don't even live in the UK, nor have I ever been to Pakistan. I understand that you aren't particularly fond of the organization and you want to have your voice heard about them. But if you want to actually contribute you need to provide reliable sources for your claims (so that it can be included in the article) Omi(☺) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm an editor with no ties to the religious quarrels in question, who stumbled into this issue. Falconkhe, and a number of similar-number IPs with very similar writing styles and phrasings have been engaged in constant and ongoing harassment in articles related to the religious figure Gohar Shahi. Despite all encouragements to remain objective and provide sources, Falconkhe and similar-opinion (?) IPs have continued the exact same behavior, making POV accusations both on Talk and the article, reversions, etc. Some admin attention to these patterns of misbehavior would be greatly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omi, thats what I am asking you to provide with reliable sources and contribute positively, each time you come up with references of self-made websites like you are preaching self-made teaching and linked that up with HH Gohar Shahi. Please provide reliable sources for your articles.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not borne-out by some of your edits: "Edit diff showing removal of Falconkhe's "extremely POV comments" by an uninvolved editor Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a lot of jiggery-pokery going on sporadically to redirect and unredirect pages to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, eg edit diff and edit diff involving Falconkhe and Nasiryounus Esowteric+Talk 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I have done, I have provide with genuine reasons and reliable sources.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not correct. You've not provided any references regarding RAGS International, to which Omi did provide references which are reliable as well. And you accuse Omi of providing references that are not reliable; you might want to provide references from that.-- NY7 ☆ 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can just discuss the sources on the respective talk pages, and decide how reliable they are for what they are being used for there. Falconkhe, I think you could actually make the articles relating to Gohar Shahi more neutral by offering references for your claims. Otherwise, you can continue to say "So-and-so are conspiring against Gohar Shahi" but it can't be added in the articles without sources. Just, please be a little more respective towards the other editors on Wikipedia, and maybe use more descriptive edit summaries- and I'm sure things can work out. Omi(☺) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The broader context for all this is that for some time several editors have been involved in a battle over any articles to do with Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi: articles about him; about his organizations; mentioning him; or redirecting to him. Editors are split into three main camps: Gohar supporters; Gohar critics and neutral editors who understand Wikipedia's requirements. Esowteric+Talk 10:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of 119. editors and Falconkhe repeatedly sneaking in gratuitous Gohar Shahi references and images into articles where neutral editors see no justification for doing so. One example is the Sufism article, which Esowteric+Talk has already referred to in his 12:22, 6 February 2010 and 15:50, 6 February 2010 comments.

As I am semi-involved I feel it necessary ask for community input in relation to restricting User:Caesarjbsquitti. There is a long term issue with his use of talkspace, his attitude toward other editors and editing in breach of WP:OR, WP:SOAP. To my mind this user has demonstrated a disregard for site standards and policies that is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of this site fo a number of years. I suggest it is time to restrict Caesar's talk page postings, or to consider an other community sanction.--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
User:Caesarjbsquitti is continuing to use this site, its article pages, its talk space and its user space to push his ideas. Caesarjbsquitti has published a book which he uses his user page to advertise in breach of WP:USER and WP:AD [2]. He uses talkspace to lecture us all on how 'The truth can lie' and has been doing so for years.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He has accused this site, its sysops, and other volunteers of intimidation and censorship [11][12][13][14][15]
But the issue is that User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing and forum posting on this site in relation to multiple topics. He repeated this behaviour today. Rather than block him I warned him again, and again (explaining why), and again. He hasn't listened[16][17][18]. (please note also he posted the same stuff to two pages [19][20]) Therefore I'm bringing this to the community in order to request broader input on the situation.

History

He was topic banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing[21], he was blocked twice for it[22], he has been repeatedly warned over the course of years[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] but he is not listening.

I'm restricting evidence to edits since his topic ban in June 2008. For anyone interested in his behaviour before that please see this for an indicative situation and conversation related to the topic Devil.

Soapboxing since the 2008 topic ban

• Relevant policies & guidelines: WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM & WP:BATTLE

On Talk:English language[30] [31][32][33].
On Talk:Thallium [34]
On Medicine_in_China[35]
On Talk:Crohn's disease[36]
About feminism and bias against men[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
On Talk:Pornography[51][52][53]
On 'abuse' topics (watch out for repeated phrases like censorship, hidden agenda etc) [54][55][56][57][58]
On Talk:Political correctness[59][60]

Multiposting

• Relevant policies WP:POVPUSH, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG,

On Vitamin talk pages[61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

On domestic violence topic articles (June 2008)[68][69][70] - please note the coatrack issue in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to review this--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's response

The issue of this complaint deals with the listing for Violence against LGBT People

The problem with the entry is that it polarizes the issue, as do many of the past entries on abuse, most notable againt men, and against the heterosexual community. Here is the reference provided.

A most notable case involved a bisexual women who killed her boyfriend, by becoming involved with a lesbian woman,Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder

I will try to find another link. The fact as you say that the CBC does not make mention of the sexual orientation, (while other sites do) shows how censorship of this situation is quite prominent in North America, or at least Canada...Guilty verdict in lesbian axe murder

This article in the Toronto Sun makes mention of a lesbian, (the CBC report states same sex. Another article title refers to a bi-sexual woman. (good case study for political correctness ?)Toronto woman in court in bisexual love-triangle murder case

This article must remove gender or orientation biases because it is discriminatory. While it is true this group can be victimized by others, they also can be victimized by themselves and they can also be abusers.

The issue is addressed by someone else as well...Violence by LGBT

As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Caesar this issue is not about the content of your posts but rather the form. What you are demanding is that article about violence against women and violence against LGBT people remove the gender category from them. These articles are about gender based violence not violence in general. Your posts are criticisms of the subject and that kind of posting is not permitted as per WP:TPG and WP:FORUM. You've had this explained to you multiple times - in fact you were just blocked for this kind of post last winter. The reason I brought this here was to discuss with the wider community what to do about it--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out to you that...You say that the artilce is about gender based violence well violence against women can also be perpetruated on women in general by some women. (In lesbian relationships the violence is by women against women.) Enough has been said about the anti-male, anti-heteroseuxal approach of the current models dealing with violence and abuse. 10 years ago much of this matter was being censored by individuals with a conflict of interest.

In so far as violence against LGBT you suggest that it is by non LGBT, and that is incorrect. There are lesbians who abuse homosexuals, there are homosexuals who abuse lesbians, and on and on...To merely paint heterosexuals as THE abusers is a deceptive half-truth.

The example given in the talk page, that of a bi-sexual woman and her lesbian female lover killing the bi-sexuals boyfriend suggests we have to rethink our model of violence against LGBT to include violence by LGBT, or we can include examples of LGBT members abusering other members of the LGBT group, as a matter of fairness. The current models are one sided, unfair, sexist and biased. The evidence is clear, and someone should change the listing to be more inclusive and non-discriminatory.

Many postings are a conflict of interest.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar because you made quite a serious allegation I am going to directly ask a number of editors to review this situation in the hope that the wider community will weigh in--Cailil ^talk 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further none of the remarks you have attributed to me in the above post reflect anything that I have said. Also please remember this not about the content of your postings but rather the form--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the issue is 'neutrality' of the topics involved and an attempt to censor my postings and or comments to suggest an improvement. On the one hand after repeated 'criticisms' that are clearly in keeping with trying to keep the wikipeida neutral, there are some with a hidden agenda who would rather see me not posting. Sadly, many with a conflict of interest. If you do a cross section analysis of them you may find the key.

Let history show that in all the comments on this listing, not once did the analysis of the fact that some within the LGBT community can also abuse was addressed.

While at first my postings were being deleted even after being referenced, it became obvious that even posting to the 'talk' page to improve the wikipedia articles, even with providing legitimate sources was not acceptable to some.

This reminds me of how the radical feminists, and how some radical lesbian feminists were able to corrupt the models of abuse, first the children's aid society with the model, "men who abuse, women and children victims' and then the spousal models with the slogan, "Stop violence against women..." including the incident involved Ms. Simpson whose sister ignored the simple truth that a Mr. Goldberg was also murdered in the incident.

Thanks for your time and consideration....--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source to your article that should be dealt with.

• • What about the killing of the great Italian DesignerGianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan.

I am begining to understand how someone can be railroaded based on a conflict of interest, and or hidden agenda.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar, first I don't have any "hidden agenda" - please stop assuming bad faith. Second, this is in your hands but you're not listening. Durova has given good advice please read it and consider it. And remember this is about how you use talk-space not about sources or other content matters. Third, by using this page as a soapbox you aren't helping yourself - please reconsider this approach--Cailil ^talk 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about the posting that necessitated this, (that appeared just after another concern about the LGBT group appear illogical. You use truths non-critically to paint a rather poor picture of my postings. I suggest you address the issue, the posting, that sparked this latest concern, and that is what talk pages are for. Let me repeat this again. The current listing is impartial, unfair, biased, one sided. My suggestion was to improve it and yet you have not given me a reason why it should not be added, merely attack me--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar, this is not the place to discuss content but briefly: you want to add a source (a news item that alleges a women's female lover killed her boyfriend on that woman's request) to Violence against women and violence against LGBT people. But this source is not about violence against women or LGBT people, I told you that there[71], as did User:C.Fred[72]. You use the source to criticize the subject of the articles. This is a) not relevant to the article and b) not acceptable use of an article talkpage.
Please listen Caesar, I don't want you to get banned if you are willing to be a productive editor - but you have threatened me, verbal insulted me and accused me of conflicts of interest without basis. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable on a site founded on principles of civility and assumptions of good faith. If you retract (strike) these remarks immediately I will ignore them if not I must follow site protocol for dealing with harassment. It's your choice. The door is still open - you can convince people that you are willing to work within the rules and standards of this site. The work you did today on Sinusitis is good. You can continue to do good work if you recognize what you've been doing wrong--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside views

Cailil has asked me to review this thread. The soapboxing is worrisome, especially since it appears to have continued on other subjects unabated since the implementation of a topic ban. The issue is not whether Caesarjbsquitti's opinions are correct but whether he presents them in ways that are compatible with Wikipedia's structure and mission. Article talk pages exist to discuss specific improvements to articles; they are not forums for sharing personal opinions about a subject. Has there been any formal dispute resolution attempted recently? Other than the topic ban this editor's block log is short. It might be that a constructive approach such as a user conduct request for comment could steer things toward a more productive and wiki-compatible direction. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Durova. The last DR attempted was in relation to English language in September 2009. Caesar had WP:FORUM explained to him again then. And after 4 warnings was brought here. Caesar's response to this was to assume bad faith of the others involved rather than engage with the policy issue [73][74](same text posted twice - and BTW the first diff shows him altering an archived ANI thread). Apart from his talk postings to Talk:Violence against LGBT people, Talk:Violence against women, his replies on his own talk page[75][76], and the posts here Caesar has only made one edit to wikipedia since his last block - so there has been no chance to engage with him through WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calil has asked me to review this thread. I have in fact enountered Caeserjbsquitti many times in the past. I have never been involved in a conflict with him. However, I have only seen him use talk pages for soap-boxing, and have never seen him constructively edit an article; any edits I have followed were reverted by someone else. I endorse Durova's point that talk pages are for the purpose of improving articles. Frankly Caeser's statement at this thread, "As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning." makes the case against him quite well. For all the time that he has ben at Wikipedia, he still does not understand that (1) Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability and (2) not a place for an editor to forward his or her own views. Yet Caeser admits that is all he wishes to do here. Frankly, I think Caser should be banned, out and out. I m calling for a community ban, because Caeser has never shown any indication ofagreeing to or being willing to work within the framework of our core policies and to the contrary simply hijacks talk pages to promote his own views. Can anyone provide one example of a substantive improvement he made to any - any - article?

His allegations against Cailil are for me the last straw. I do not know Cailil well, but I do know that s/he has worked very hard on a number of actual articles, making major contributions to the encyclopedia. Morover I have seen him/her involved in edit conflicts where s/he has always shown patience in working towards a compromise based on core content plicies. In short, one of our best eidtors. Bor Caeser, who is nothing but a POV pusher, to criticise Ailil, who works hard to make this a better encyclopedia, is in my view perverse.

If people think my call for a community ban is too hash I ask people to propose soething less harsh but that will allow us to police his actions for a finite period of time to see whether a ban is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the last posting was well referenced, and yet the posting has not been addressed as to its validity.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying SLR. And just so everyone understands - whenever Caesar has been brought under the spotlight he has always declared that people who do so "have an agenda" not just myself (per [77][78][79][80])--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil you have not addressed the referenced material, merely attack me, trying to ban me from wikipedia. A site that I have spent alot of time on.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should perhaps be noted that there is a WP:KETTLE element to his use of WP:COI - when if you look at his userpage and many of his posts he attempts to promote his book--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comments...they are suggestions based on relevant incidents that are not included in the postings. They are obvious truths that are being ignored.

For example, "The Stop violence against women" campaigns, is an obvious error when it relates to spousal abuse. Child abuse has also been corrupted within recent history.

There are many 'feminists' and others who would deliberately ignore these obvious truths to promote their obvious sexist censorship of valid truths; I have sought repeatedly to merely introduce suggestions to the talk pages for someone else to take the initiative to make changes to the official page.

I thank you for your comments, but I do not see anyone refuting the truth that 'gays, lesbians and bisexuals abuse as well, sometimes each other and sometimes those outside their group" Should you not be addressing the validity of my comments to see whether they are merely opinion or verifiable facts that should be included ?

It appears by the comments made in attack of my comments, that the individual who has started this has 'invited' individuals. I might suggest a more objective and unbiased group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please note: When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox insead."

"Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."

I might ask that you address the link that I have provided and either accept it into the article or establish another one. This was not mere 'soapboxing' as Cilil states.

He identifies as being male, with intersts in atheism, a feminist. But when I suggest that there is obvious anti-male postings he as a male does not defend them as a male would, suggesting to me a problem of logic. Yes I digress, but I do not appreciate being censored or threatened when I point out how articles are unfair,unbalanced, and anti-heterosexual.

When I have more time I will come back with some more research findings...--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a posting to the English Language that was brought up. If i recall correctly I heard on the CBC that someone had written a book about the english language, specifically that one of the major contributors was a criminal genius who wrote from prison. To this suggestion I was met with resistence. The idea was totally rejected, and more. I used the talk page to suggest an improvement rather than making the change itself. The source was never entered into nor considered.

In regards to conspiracies about 9-11, again suggestions were gathered from reputable TV programs, and again met with censorship, and resistence.

Getting back to the page that started this attack, would someone check the link and suggest whether this is valid and what improvments will be made to include the truth of that matter.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the killing of the great Italian Designer Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan ?--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years. How you have ignored policy, warnings, blocks and topic bans - all designed to help you recognize that you are going about using this site improperly. And no I am not "trying to get you banned". I, rather than block you, brought this to the wider community in order to ask them what to do. When you accused me of a conflict of interest I contacted 3 volunteers Durova, Slrubenstein and Jehochman. I also made a point of stating this here on this thread - as did the people replying. This was done so that other, uninvolved people might enter the conversation - now other editors are voicing their opinions on what to do. Slrubenstein suggested a ban, other users agree. You have been advised of policy for a very long time - you have chosen to accuse others of bad faith rather than recognize the problem at your end. You may still be able to change people's minds if you could demonstrate a willingness and ability to accept and abide by site policy and guidelines about talk page postings and the general core principles of the site--Cailil ^talk 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using truths out of context to try to get me banned by yourself. The issue that brought up this last attack of myself stems from my posting some suggestion that the entry about violence against LGBT, does not include violence by LGBT against LGBT. I have given you a specific link resource. Now you seem to be coatraking all other concerns over the past years to censor me. You have not addressed the suggestion that was a simple attempt to add balance to the article. I would suggest a full inquiry into you, your background, who you are, (you are hiding under a false name) and why your beliefs are attempting to hide a simple truth about the LGBT group.

There is no mention of the many hundreds of entries I have added; an error of omission over the past 4 years.

When I have more time I will get back to this concern. My involvement in wikipedia has been reduced in part due to the resistence to exposing some simple information that appears to be politically incorrect by some like yourself, and you are doing a fine job in using truths to ban me from this.

I will hope you will do all you can in adding balance to many of the articles including how many of them today, are out of balance, (as one other person mentioned on the site previous to my posting) about violence (and abuses ) by the LGBT group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years."

Your last response is questionable. I made a simple suggestion and sourced it to add balance and fairness to the entry. You appear to have a conflict with that, otherwise why would you not enter it, nor defend it ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban discussion

It is proposed that User:Caesarjbsquitti be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipeda:

• Support indef ban The talk page comments aren't productive, and I see a total of four article edits since August 2009. AniMate 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just ban him already if that post above is an example of what he's coming out with (seems to be). He's obviously determined to get "The Truth"(TM) into Wikipedia come hell or high water, regardless of any of our policies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban I have warned him many times over the years. Its about time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - I have run across this editor in the past, and I've often hoped that he would reform after Wikipedia policy was explained to him. This hope was misplaced, since he does not listen. So if he continues to edit, we should expect more of the same. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - An editor, accused of soapboxing, uses the situation as an opportunity for more soapboxing (complaining about feminism, etc.). I don't see the editor capable of being neutral enough to edit Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose. ANI discussions are not dispute resolution attempts. Formal dispute resolution at Wikipedia takes six forms: wikiquette alerts, article content request for comment, user conduct request for comment, mediation cabal, mediation committee, and arbitration. Balancing respect for Cailil with good faith here. Caesarjbsquitti, you can see where this is headed. Your actions to this point are not compatible with site mission. If you are interested in receiving feedback and adjusting to our norms, please state so clearly. I am offering to certify a conduct RfC in place of an immediate siteban. It's not meant to humiliate--more about giving feedback and getting things on course. Sometimes we all have to put our personal opinions in our pockets and be editors first. If you're willing to get on board with that please say so. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how an RfC would be helpful here. Looking through his talk page history, acceptable Wikipedia editing practices have been explained plenty of times. Everything he can possibly learn from an RfC is either here or no his talk page. The only reason more serious sanctions weren't leveled against him in 2008, was because he was only focused on 9/11 at that time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22#User:Caesarjbsquitti_and_unsourced_POV shows his problems have been going on for over two years now, and looking at this, he isn't prolific enough of a content contributor to warrant any sort of leeway for his numerous and years long talk page violations. Sorry, there's assuming good faith and there's being a glutton for punishment. AniMate 04:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also unsure how much of a dispute there is here. This just looks like flat out abuse by one editor in multiple forums. AniMate 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an opportunity: if he steps up and expresses in a no nonsense way that he's willing to get with the program then let's give real dispute resolution a go. This person has been talking at (not to) the community and the community has been talking at (not to) him. One straightforward offer on the level is appropriate. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Such an offer would be the triumph of hope over experience. Pigs will fly and hot places will be covered with ice before this editor will step up and offer to get with the program. Do you see any comprehension of Wikipedia policy in the comments he has made above? EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get where you're coming from Durova and as I said to Caesar above, if he can work within site regulations and be a productive editor I'd prefer if he wasn't site banned. I understand how distressing this process probably is for Caesar. So if he can demonstrate a willingness to recognize what he's been doing wrong and undertakes to adjust his postings I'd be happy to support something much lesser than a siteban. But his response demanding my identity "be investigated" is not encouraging.
    That said I don't think an RfC/U would help in this case. There isn't a dispute per se to resolve. Some other measure: restricting his talk activities to one talk page thread (with posts conforming to WP:TPG, WP:EQ and WP:FORUM) per day with an uninvolved sysop to monitor him for 12 months. And/or a topic ban from truth, lies, abuse, violence, men's rights and feminism topics for 12 months--Cailil ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this editor doesn't respond positively then the ban will go through as proposed. At least he's had a fair chance. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban. I see a long history of abuse of the project, and no sign of willingness to change this behaviour. Also, the problematic behaviour is spread out so far and wide that a mere topic ban will be ineffective to curb it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We appear to have a consensus. Does anyone object if I go ahead and enforce the ban? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arhcive: Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey. May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs))^[81][82]. Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Hu12. I suspect that Antmarkhemingway is running sanctioned fansites with permission from Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey (so "official" in a manner of speaking). However, even if these were official sites registered to the band/record company/individuals involved, there's nothing to say that we have to include them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not here to drive web traffic to external sites or provide a fan service. Unfortunately we can only go by the behaviour we observe and Antmarkhemingway has done his sites no favours by behaving like a spammer. Looking at the history of spamming and disruption, I see no compelling reason why these sites should be unblacklisted. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 is being very petty now i think! And this is not meant in a rude way, but if you knew anything about the internet, a persons IP changes regular, so that is something that is not my problem. Why would i go through the trouble to change my IP address for the sake of editing here? I am a webmaster and know full well that IP addresses are traceable even when changed. Shakespearssister.co.uk is Siobhan Fahey's web site and port of call. All news is posted their, and it is the place for media and fans alike. Those interviews you refer to on the wikipage were actually arranged via ss.co.uk!!! It is not a "fan site", and i really wish you would stop using that term, as you are really getting quite annoying now. Wikipedia has used information from ss.co.uk, but when teh contributors try and reference ss.co.uk they haven't been able to! Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the band itself publishes the address as the go-to site on its albums, I'm not sure why it would not be an 'official' site. I don't really understand why this site is blacklisted, and I'm not convinced it's 'spamming' to have it in the article; most musician articles include the musician's main site with no problems. The band doesn't appear to be obscure or non-notable, after all. I have been horrified by some of the uncivil behavior I've seen from some of the people trying to add it, but we don't usually blacklist sites for that reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are such things as "official" fansites, where the quality and expertise of the host created pages serve as useful publicity tools - and whose addresses are reproduced on some of the artists products. I know, because I belong to one. This doesn't mean that what is reproduced there is necessarily representative of the subject, since it is the editorial decision of the site owner, but the relationship is sufficiently beneficial to be given "official" recognition. While not an unreliable source, such sites should be treated with caution when it is the only available reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; I'm willing to let this be decided by people more learned in the subject than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May i ad for one final time that this is certainly not a "fan site" it fully represents the band. But how can i prove this? Just becasue the site isnt registered to Shakespears Sister??? I purchased the domain and hosting in my name as i pay for the hosting on behalf of Siobhan fahey. All i ask is people just take a look at the site and look at its content, its clearly represenative of the band and all the information on the site is 100% correct and accurate. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what generally separates a "fan site" from an "official site" is that the former is amateur (as in "labour of love") and the latter is professional. Are you paid by Siobhan Fahey or her management, or do you do this as a fan? Your comment about paying for hosting "on behalf of" Fahey is a bit confusing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Is it possible to link to a statement from the artiste(s) (management) saying the website is the sole legal online representative of said artiste(s). This might be linked from the artistes record label or management website. It should also note where editorial control is exercised, and by whom. Another avenue, likely preferred by WP, would be if an independent source noted that the site was the official online representation of the subject(s). That said, I would draw your attention to thebansheesandothercreatures, whose address has recently appeared on releases by Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Creatures, and Siouxsie Sioux and is linked from their official sites and record label websites, and that of Steven Severin. Despite this "recognition" (and the accuracy of its content) it remains a fan site since the editor - who owns the site - is independent of the artists; it is one of the acknowledged "official" fansites. Under the circumstances, clarification of the status of "your" website is required before WP can describe it as being that of the subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the site is linked on the bands record label web site http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Thanks, Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What about statements to the effect that the site is legally the official website from Fahey, her management or record label, or an independent third party to that effect, and whether you are acting on behalf of or are an employee of the artist or their record label? I would draw your attention to the earlier comments also from HU12 and EyeSerene regarding your interaction with other editors and inappropriate "promoting" of the website. Even if the website is removed from the blacklist, there would need to be an improvement in your behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Cargo Records is a 'distributor of independant records labels" [83], and not the artist's label. XinJeisan (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. but that just came with the fustration. it isnt hugely important that the site is listed here, but i just think it looks better, as most other artists have their sites linked. I will refrain from editing the Siobhan Fahey page and Shakespears sister page, and will let whoever ad it Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think that might be helpful. It's edits like this that sparked my concern; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and casts doubt on your motives for editing the article. Per WP:ELNO criterion 1, we only need include external links that add content beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. That's deliberately a very high bar; if the external site's content is already covered by the article (perhaps as a source for the content), we don't need to include it as a separate external link as it adds no extra value. Exceptions are offsite content that we can't host for whatever reason (for example, the original text of a document that's discussed in an article but that can't be quoted in full without breaching someone's copyright). Like LHvU I have some reservations about using the site as a source, but that's another discussion. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But couldn't we at least have the site listed on the URL of Siobhan Fahey's profile. Its only fair i think. Bananarama's website doesnt offer any further information thats on their wikipedia and their site is on here, even their youtube and myspace are listed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananarama I was told that youtubes and myspaces were not allowed, so thats is why i took all this a persoanl dig at the band, because it seemed Siobhan's former band was allowed their site, youtube, myspace etc. but not her, This wa my issue all along. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If Antmarkhemingway withdraws from editing the article I think there should be no reason to have the site unblacklisted and placed in the appropriate place in the article. As long as it is not being used or promoted as a reliable source then I feel it may well be included. Does anybody know how to do the unblacklist thingy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly withdraw from editing the article. I would just be very happy to see the site in the URL section of Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister's profile pages if possible as they are very reliable sources. All information on SS.co.uk is accurate and approved by Siobhan (afterall, she did write the bio), I just thought it would be fair, since, as stated above, Wikipedia actually has MORE information on Bananarama than their official site does itself, in my honest opinion, and their site and youtube channels are listed. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And I also would like to appologuise for past behaviour, and i feel like i have learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the experience, and appreciate it much more. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have we been able to reach a decission on this matter? Please let me know Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• • This issue was archived but it has not yet been resolved. Is the site going to unblacklisted? Sorry for puuting this topic back here if i wasnt suppose to Antmarkhemingway (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC). Moved here to preserve chronological order. EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sites involved (from the blacklist) are:

• jacquieoh.com
• shakespearssister.co.uk
• facebook.com/ShakespearsSisterOfficial
• bananaramafanclub.freehostking.com

We appear to have some weak consensus that the first two can be removed - anyone else care to comment? EyeSerene^talk 12:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy enough for the first two to be taken off the blacklist - they could prove useful for a reader of the article. The latter two I feel fall under WP:NOTLINK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the latter two are not needed. As I have learned, Facebook pages are not allowed, official or not, am I correct? So that one is ok. The Bananaramafanclub can go, im not sure if that even exists anymore, it was a site i uploaded on behalf of a fan who used to run a fan service, and is not official Antmarkhemingway (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'd suggest to remove the first two, and add them to their own pages here (and not anywhere else). Antmarkhemingway, you might want to have a look at WP:OTHERLINKS/WP:WAX (that other links are somewhere else, is not a reason to include yours, it might be a reason to remove the other, but it may also be that the others are discussed and deemed appropriate), and consider that we do not have to link, even to thé official site. We link as we assert that it gives more information. Unwillingness to discuss before inclusion, or other attempts to push a link may indeed lead to (re-)blacklisting, especially when the pushy editor has a conflict of interest regarding the subject.

Shall I go on an remove them from the blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems we agree that the first two should be removed. I don't mind doing it, but since you've offered, Dirk... :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you have been most helpful. Both sites do offer further information, such as latest events and extensive biographies. The Shakespears Sister site would be best added to both Siobhan Fahey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siobhan_Fahey and Shakespears sister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespears_Sister pages, as Shakespears Sister is pretty much now Siobhan Fahey, and the site is mainly based on her, but former band member(s) are breifly included. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently Dirk has gone offline, so I've updated the spam blacklist myself. Since you've undertaken not to edit them, I'll also add the sites to the articles. Other editors may have different ideas and there's no guarantee they'll stay in the articles forever - if they do get removed again, by all means point the editors concerned to this thread (which will be in the ANI archives), but please don't add them back in yourself :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I didn't realize that any consensus was reached about the .jaquieoh website. I didn't originally bring this to ANI to discuss whether blacklisting the websites was a good idea or not -- which was never directly discussed nor did Antmarkhemingway copy the entire discussion over when he was looking for a decision to be made in his favor. But my complaint towards Antmarkhemingway's behavior changed to a discussion about whether the decision to blacklist was correct.

I stated if the SS site was taken off the blacklist, I would think that would be okay, as long as it was not used as a source for the article. However, if there was any discussion about whitelisting the jaquieoh site, I would have disagreed strongly. I already mentioned why The Jacquie O'Sullivan article itself is unsourced -- it is quite difficult to find reliable sources about her -- I've tried. (You can see the work I have done on Shakespears Sister and Siobhan Fahey, for example here, here, (this last edit was actually removed here by someone trying to put back in the ss website, even though I had properly sourced the material with reliable sources), here, and here. So, I haven't just spent my time removing the one site, I actively worked to improve the articles in the spirit of Wikipedia. However, there is not a reliable source that states Jacquie O'Sullivan was a casting director at all. And, while on Talk:Jacquie O'Sullivan he seemed to admit that this wasn't accurate (see this diff), here he states that not only was O'Sullivan a casting director, but that she has worked for Lee Dennison So, putting an website that in the past has put up incorrect/unverifiable information doesn't seem right to me. Also, also the diffs here and here seem to contradict what he said here about what IP he uses.

I just wanted to put this here in the record so people realize why these websites were blacklisted and why originally I wanted to bring this to the community's attention.XinJeisan (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be talking about two separate issues. The first is including the sites on the articles in question, which seems to have been reasonably settled. With my editor's hat on I see no harm in listing them in the External links section, but would not recommend including them in the infobox; although they are clearly approved of by the artists, I don't believe they are 'official' in the sense most of us might use the word (as in directly paid for by the artists or operated/owned by paid representatives). The second is using them as source material for the article content; again with my editor's hat on I think this is more problematic. They may be mostly accurate, but as Antmarkhemingway indicated above they are not necessarily secondary sources and should be treated with caution. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed offline by that time, thanks EyeSerene for the removal.

The reason to blacklist was the pushing behaviour, abuse of the link, and the surrounding behaviour of the spammers. I agree that this seems more a 'band approved fan-site' than the official band site, and should be treated as such.

I would say that we need to keep an eye on this one and revisit its use after this moment. I think/hope Antmarkhemingway has gotten the message that we include links after consensus and discussion, and I hope that we will see use of the link, and not abuse. De-blacklisting a link has in common with blacklisting that neither have to be permanent. Regarding Jacquie O'Sullivan, I would say, see if it can be sourced, if they is notable enough, etc. If that fails, WP:AFD might be worth to see if something comes up. When the article would be deleted, then there would simply be no use for the link, but as long as there is no abuse, we don't need to re-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very much my thoughts too. Given Antmarkhemingway's assurances, I believe the underlying reason for keeping the sites blacklisted has been addressed. I'll keep the articles watchlisted though. The lack of sourcing on Jacquie O'Sullivan is a concern, especially with WP:BLP being enforced increasingly strictly. Suitable sources should exist - she was in one of the most successful bands of the time. I assume we're OK with Antmarkhemingway participating constructively on the article talk-pages per WP:TALK? They obviously know the subjects, so might be of help in locating reliable sources. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am more than happy to help in anyway in the future, but will leave links to the powers that be! I am not paid for Jacquie O'Sullivan/Slippry Feet's web site, and yes I guess its pretty much an approved fan site if you look at it from that angel, and this is simply due tot the fact jacquie has gone quiet and there is no news to update. If she records music again one day, then the site will be updated appropriately. Jacquie did participate in the site during its first few months, but she got busy and Paul Simper (former band mate, Slippry Feet) finished it off with me. A Siobhan fahey's site is slightly different, it is her represensative website, which I am paid for, BUT, i make the initial payment and then reinbursed later... this is why the i am the registered owner, i know its not ideal, but thats just the way things turned out. Again, thank you for your understanding, and I hope to work with you on this in future, not against you! Also can I just varify that I never changed my IP address. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm glad we've managed to hammer out a positive solution between us, which was due in large part to your cooperation - so thank you for that. Regarding the IP addresses, I accept that they were not yours. As you suggest, most likely they came from your forum members; it's not unusual that off-Wikipedia groups organise when they believe we're being unfair to their interests. I hope we've demonstrated that such activity is counter productive and the best results come from collegiate collaboration and consensus-building. I also hope XinJeisan's concerns have been addressed as far as we can; sourcing problems are a content issue and beyond the remit of this board (though of course if other difficulties reoccur XinJeisan should bring them back to ANI). Suggestions for resolving content disputes can be found at WP:DR and the reliable sources noticeboard may also be of help. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes im very happy we have resolved this and i hope there is no bad feelings between me and Xinjeisan! they were doing there job. I do understand that some of those IPS belong to me, as im sure if anyone checks with an IP expert of some kind, IPs do changed themselves (the last digits), depending on the browsing session etc. i would never sit and intentionally change my address. IPs can sometimes give themselves new idnetities while browsing certain sites for protection if you have that kind of antiviral software. So maybe this could explain a few IPs on my name? Anyways, I am glad all is resolved and i will be happy to help further in the future Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

User:Parrot of Doom has been generally uncivil today and failed or even mocked requests to improve his behaviour, He started off edit warring over an unfree picture in the nick griffen article with User_talk:J_Milburn after three reverts his actions culminated in this edit with the edit summary in capitals of "CLEAR THE FUCK OFF" , I left him a polite civility note, to which he replied, "thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" he then again was uncivil on a public talkpage, saying on the talkpage of Griffin , "What the fuck is it with people today". I informed him again that he was being uncivil and requested him to stop, he replied that "Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate." and with the edit summary of " civility bollocks" followed up with the edit summary of "indent reply about civility bollocks" , Users should not have to suffer this level of insulting commentary, the editor in question appears to believe that he can speak derogatory to other users, this is upsetting to some editors and should not be ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you've managed to create silly wikidrama at 3 pages now. Starved of attention today are we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is obviously out for wikidrama and constructive or not it should be pointed out, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there is an alternate side to his little story above. His idea of incivility is when someone else uses language that he doesn't approve of. Then to go running to ANI to 'report' it is, in my opinion, a perfect example of creating a wikidrama. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foul language isn't acceptable, particularly if another editor requested it to be stopped. Parrot needs to cool it, less administrators give him an un-voluntary break. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Foul" language is not against policy, neither is it, in itself, uncivil. A request is, by definition, an invitation for a refusal. PoD, while I agree should chill a bit, has every right to use whatever language he chooses to convey whatever it is he is attempting to convey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but that's a total misuse of the edit summary. Getting into a revert war that devolves into "fuck off" or even "go away" comments is not acceptable on any level. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of Roux, one of the rudest and most abusive of editors on this site, turning up to criticise another editor for incivility is mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Malleus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you're blind to your own incvility and abuse. Irony enough for everyone, it seems. So, how about you try this for a change, Malleus? Stop being a fucking dick. I know, I know, it's pretty much impossible for you. But you sit there and continually browbeat others while screaming at the top of your lungs for people to be nice to you. It would also behoove you to note that I didn't criticise anyone for incivility--I pointed out that his comment was unconstructive. But then, detail was never exactly your strong suit, now was it? Certainly not when piddly little things like 'facts' would get in the way of you getting your digs in. Grow the fuck up and start acting like an adult. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning, Malleus and Roux; disengage from each other. This isn't about you, and every civility thread on ANI is not a reason for you to continue your feud. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warn away, but you cannot suppress the truth that Roux is just as guilty of what he's complaining about with this edit summary. Why not address that issue instead of throwing your weight around? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you have now acknowledged the warning, continue with the behaviour and you'll get a block. That goes with Roux as well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon? Malleus shows up out of nowhere to attack me, and I'm being warned? Blame the victim, nice. Plus ca change.. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware, and I'm telling you to be the better man here and leave it at that. Don't contribute to the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let him--again--simply spout whatever crap he wants? Here's the thing that you lot don't seem to understand.. you keep telling him to stop, you keep doing nothing about it, and therefore you keep enabling and encouraging him to be ever-more-abusive to everyone on this site. → ROUX ₪ 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some imbalance here. malleus stops and gets blocked. Roux continues but doesn't get blocked. Looks like that's an unbalanced answer to the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to point out, if PoD had respected the request to cool it, at the public talkpage, he wouldn't have been reported. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And why exactly should the request have been granted? "Do as I ask or I'll report you"? To me that rather smacks of bullying and threats. How about PoD's right to use whatever language he deems appropriate for getting his point across? This is a rather typical ploy of the 'civility police' mentality around here. Threats and wikidrama. Now that sounds far more uncivil than the release of an F-bomb. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way, Fred. Do you think others are more or less likely to take PoD seriously and engage with him in a calm manner if he's throwing around profanity? If PoD cannot express his displeasure or disagreement with an action without resorting to "an F-bomb", it's a lack of vocabulary or imagination on his part, and it only causes discussion to decay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An F-bomb is not an example of lack of vocabulary. In fact many times it is the perfect word to get across certain feelings. In my veiw this makes it the perfect use of vocabulary. It is not my decision on what allows PoD to be taken seriously, primarily because I don't believe that the use of epithets devalues what a person is saying. Your mileage obviously varies. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following article may be of some interest:

• Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A right to use foul language? there's no such thing as rights here. At Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By those rules there is no right to the expectation that someone is going to respect one's own view of the world and what languages we expect others to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One's own views on civility becomes irrelevant, when one is blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. There is not one person on Wikipedia that can define exactly what incivility actually is, yet strangely lots of people think they know and use their own interpretation to go ahead and block someone based purely on subjective opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expect to be blocked if I spoke to editors in the same way, especially if I had been politely requested to be more civil, my request was mocked, and the behavior repeated, good faith editors are repelled by this level of incivility and should not have to be addressed in this manner. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your expectations have no greater sway than PoD's right to use language he deems appropriate. Also your interpretation of "uncivil" holds no greater sway than his. Who are you to decide what is or isn't uncivil? Good faith editors are also repelled by the immature, run to mummy approach that is frequently used by the final arbiters of what should be civil and what shouldn't be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a right on Wikipedia, we've privillages. IMHO, if one's want to spourt off on his/her pesonal page? fine. But, not on public pages, when requested not to. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, you should leave block notices on their pages. I know they're aware, but in the interest of the probable unblock requests... Tan | 39 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left them in other tabs and forgot to save. Appended, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go on about lack of rights again. That lack of right also applies to peoples' expectancy of what they can request and their right to have that request complied with. It is after all a request and not an instruction. The bedrock of WP is that it isn't censored. You cannot have a non-censored encyclopaedia whilst simultaneously censoring its editors behind the scenes. But back to the point, the use of off-colour language is not in and of itself uncivil. Off2riorob has no right or "privilege" to decide that it is all on his own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all up to the community, in the end (as we're a collaborative project). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The bedrock of WP is that it's uncensored"? Strong statement; it's a facet of the project but I'd hardly call it the bedrock. Tan | 39 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, do we not -censure- people from making threats? legal, physical etc etc (which hasn't been the case here). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in any case, it's the articles that are not censored DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the boilerplate answer, but please re-read exactly what I said. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The implied threat was "swear in front of me and I'll tell teacher". I have no idea what Off2riorob expected to get from this report other than a dose of wikidrama. This he seems to have got in spades. two people blocked (none of them being PoD). This has all the hallmarks of a troll, or at the very least a WP equivalent of dropping a stink bomb before shutting the door. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly higher up the ladder (or deeper in the foundation as it were) that, say for example, errr truth. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to Off2 would've been 'ignore' Parrot 'until' he agreed to muzzle the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not OK to talk to other editors in this manner at all, if you do lose your cool, OK, we are adults, in that case you calm down and apologize, you do not assert that you will say whatever you feel is appropriate and repeat the comment.As DDG says, it is the articles that are uncensored, not the talk pages and the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As your internet acronym succinctly puts it, it is your opinion which has no greater precedence than PoDs. Where he and I come from it is perfectly acceptable to talk that way. Who are you to say that it isn't? If you don't like it, then simply ignore it. Running to mummy ANI will merely increase the signal-to-noise ratio and will cause far more disruption than any f-bomb ever could. Personally I think you were in the wrong for over-dramatising it. So far I've heard no complaint that your ears are bleeding or you were in some way harmed or mentally disturbed by anything PoD said to you? As you yourself stated, you are an adult. Adults don't go running to mummy. They just ignore what they don't like, or at least the ones round here do. This isn't a restaurant serving tough, under-done steak. That is the place to complain to the chef. In this instance you aren't going to get you way, or get a replacement steak. he can't unsay it, he isn't likely to come over to your view any time soon. So what is it you think you've achieved today, other than wasting a lot of people's valuable time with this discussion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it is ok on wikipedia to speak to editors in this way, if that is so please point that out to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here, and in each case PoD, is on the right side. Firstly, take the description in the first paragraph where the disputed image is described as nonfree- this is a mere interpretation of a borderline case- a POV. Secondly, the article is about an individual with a particularly nasty track record, it is politically naive to believe you can sit on the fence- PoD is correct to verify a fact with a reference in this case a visual one. Thirdly, the heinous crime here is to suggest that Off2riorob intervention I left him a polite civility note,,was civil- no, it was gross provocation- delivered with Blairite sanctity. To which PoD politely replied:"thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" Fourthly, there is the issue of language register. Most of the time it is vaguely amusing that, words that 'kids on the street of Collyhurst and Ancoats use as punctuation marks, cause offence in other parts of the globe. On the Gamesley Estate, a lad bumped into me and said Ah f--k mate, I dinna see ya.- and that translate into I am sorry friend, I didn't see you. In parts of South London, saying Woof in the wrong context is grossly offensive- (It suggests the recipients mother is a dog). It is sad when editors take this seriously and get precious about others using a register they personally don't subscribe too. Finally, is the issue of timewasting. We have FAs to write- and being diverted from that central task, and dragging editors away from the name space is totally counter productive.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we consider this civility report closed? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, let it carry on, its fucking hilarious. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this illustrates why some react badly. There is no reason that I can see for parrot to say (well write) a word that some find offensive. As it is writen (and not spoken in the heat of argument) it is clarly premeditated (and as such presumably serves a function, I will not presume to assume what that might be).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view I guess. Some people presume that when the word "fuck" is used, its designed to offend. I find that laughable, they almost have my pity. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The report should be closed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before it's closed, I would like to add something. Last night, I tried but gave up after numerous edit conflicts. Ok, while I would never support a block against an editor who lets rip with the odd f or c word in a moment of anger or sheer frustration (an admonitory tut-tut is sufficient, IMO), I feel that unrestrained usage of profanity should never become the norm here as it would create an ugly atmosphere of hostility, and talk pages would become battlegrounds for tit-for-tat profanity wars. Not exactly the scholarly image an encyclopedia strives for. The liberal use of profanity would also give free rein to those editors who wish to indimidate others through a contrived hard man, bad-ass Sgt. Bob Barnes stance as well as those who are just having a bad hair day and rebut a polite request with a snarling f..k off. This is not prissiness ot latent puritanism on my part, but rather practical advice to those of us here who do not wish to see Wikipedia turn into a popular hangout joint for bored kids who would use it merely to post their favourite swear words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Fred, i've never seen anyone successfully troll AN/I before. As for the rest of you. Lets stay on topic here. Choice of words and what each person considers to be offensive is more or less irrelevant. It's an issue of civility. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a useful editor's edits turn into blatant vandalism, I tend to suspect the account has been hijacked. Such is the case here. However, I don't recall the procedure (or know where to look) for handling this type of problem. To prevent further abuse of our articles - and of the editor's account, I've gone ahead and indef-blocked the account. However, I invite anyone with experience in this type of problem to correct or supplement my actions - and to post a note on my talk page pointing out the correct process. Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look farther up the page - there was a similar case recently, for a user named DC or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bugs - been awhile. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I've taken all the right steps. I don't think check user is necessary since the edits are significantly out of character and not on any previously edited article. Hopefully we hear back from him via e-mail. 'till then, we're protected. Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this:[84] I guess you figured that out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably be a help or guideline for admins as to the best way to handle compromised accounts, but I think that the procedure is generally that we indef-block until receiving an email from the address that originally registered the account. That's what happened with the DC incident that Bugs was talking about. I'm not sure who has access to email info for an account; crats? ArbCom? Oversight? And it would have to be the email account used prior to when the account was compromised, because the new "owner" of the account could change the associated email address to their own. -- Atama頭 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no usergroup has access to users' email-addresses. That's what the committed identity system is for. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC had conveniently listed their email address on their edit notice when they were still in control. Not sure if we will be so fortunate this time. –xeno^talk 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an email through the email user function requesting an explanation. I'll post any response I get here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response. Hijack seems likely. Will advise. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [85], [86], [87], [88].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([89], [90], [91], [92]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Counterview: As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving (to other articles) or deleting content which I have added to that section. (See, Talk:University of Miami#Research) Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryulong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page, causing more interruptions to my work.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, here you come accusing me of bad faith and bringing up things that are so minor and not intentional just to make me look bad. I am not seeking to prevent University of Miami from being promoted to good article status. I merged and then listed a page for WP:AFD that I did not think was notable for inclusion. I moved references that had nothing to do with the article to an article they were related to. I did not mean to change any = to any + in any edit; it was an unintentional change from an undo I performed on your edits regarding the reason I brought up this thread. All I have been doing to your talk page is change * to : because no one uses * in responses to people. If anything, your mass removal of the quotation marks is not recommended.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name="fn"> versus <ref name=fn>. Lamest edit war ever. Hesperian 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. I have asked him to not remove them, as well as a single line break, but based on an off-site copy he is keeping and the fact that he replaces the text of the article wholesale whenever he adds a new edit, I believe that this is an issue to be brought up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pls guys clam down on the talk page ...you will notice noone has answered..this can only mean people are looking deep into what is going on..so guys pls lets turn down the YELLING .. just give admin time to look things over ..both should not edit the article until we come up with a solution to your problem, since you guys cant solve it yourselves... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzzsherman you have no idea what you are talking about so if you would not mind, do not get involved with disputes if you do not know of a proper way to solve them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Buzz is completely correct. Back off and let people investigate. → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused because he copied over other people's comments in the process of adding his comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (EC)I agree with Roux. How can I get back to looking for sources? It is 2:30 a.m. and this ANI is an incredible waste of everyone's time, as is the petty harrassment over the quote marks and whether I am allowed to format the comments which I leave on my own talk page with a bullet. Racepacket (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [This comment was added immediately after Roux's but ran into 4 different edit conflict] When I tried to add it where I first submitted it, [{User:Ryulong]] is trying to start another edit war over the order in which our comments appear below Roux's. diff[reply]

For the quotation marks there is this: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles. I am not going to bother with the bullet marks or anything similar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:LAME. Nobody cares (or, at least, nobody should care) about minor coding details that make absolutely no difference in the formatted article. If it affects the GA review then something is seriously wrong with the GA process. Both of you, stop arguing, stop worrying about how each other's refs are coded, stop asking for admins to interced in your petty disputes, and get back to doing something constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is lame, but I have asked him to stop changing the coding style entirely but he just ignores me and has been accusing me of preventing the article from being promoted. Certainly the fact that the quotation marks are or are not there should not affect his ability to edit the page. He should not change them in every edit nor should he replace the text of the article wholesale with a version he has copied off of site because he does not want to use the quotation marks or a single line break at the lead of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ryulong is misquoting Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles which address converting articles from {{ref}} to <ref>. The principle applies however as common sense, which Ryulong is ignoring. I am the one doing the research and adding the references, and User:Ryulong is the one who goes back and tries to confusing things by editing the footnotes which I create by adding quotes and even a + where I placed a =. This is a lot of work -- the GA Review has asked us to add a publisher parameter to each footnote and to find alternatives to the UM website references. If he does not want to help make the article meet WP:V standards, then he should stand back and let others get the required work done. Racepacket (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a difference? And would you stop bringing up that stupid + to = thing? It was not intentional as I have been telling you for the past 2 hours. And I am not trying to sabotage a Good Article Promotion. Stop accusing me of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you have wasted the last two hours of my life with this quote mark nonsense and this ANI speaks mountains as to your intentions. It is now 3:11 a.m. and I have not been able to spend any substantial time since midnight finding new sources. Please stop this behavior. Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing me of keeping you awake and intending to cause the GAR to fail. I've removed the fucking quotation marks at this point because it's obvious you are going to keep using your .txt copy of the page's text. I'm just tired of you thinking I'm your foe in this matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interim resolution except for Daedalus969

I am please to announce that the only two users involved in this dispute myself and Ryulong have agreed to proceed without quote marks for now. Once that was established, I uploaded two more references (again without the quote marks) only to discover that after Ryulong and I have reached our agreement, User:Daedalus969 who has had no prior role in this matter has reverted the article to a state that used quote marks. He then reverted my change and added one of them back into the article with quote marks. He has also started a parallel proceeding at AN3 It is difficult to see how his edits were made in good faith. As best I can determine, they don't have a visible impact on the article (unless he accidentally picked up one of Ryulong's stray + symbols.) I have left messages on his talk page to no avail. Racepacket (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not agree to anything. I just know that you are going to constantly refer to your offline copy that you've removed all of the quotation marks from because you can't trust the online copy because of this +/= issue that you keep referring to. There are no such items in the text now. Just copy that and deal with the lack or existance of quotation marks. Maybe you shouldn't modify articles by using an oldid of an article's content and just add references to sections as you go through them like normal editors instead of making the formatting of the article your preferred version every single fucking time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought that we had agreed to proceed without quotes for now. By the way, I don't use any javascript editors, which is perhaps why I am locked out on these edit conficlts. However, I don't see how the invisible differences between the two files can constitute edit warring. And I don't see how Daedalus' action is consistent with WP:POINT - sure he managed to make invisible changes to the document and he certainly managed to confuse me and steal another hour and a half from my life. I have to be at work in 3 and a half hours, and we have many more footnotes to process. This entire invisible quote stunt is unforgiveable and will go down as one of the sillier episodes in Wikipedia lore. Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether there are quotation marks in references or not. It makes no difference whatsoever. Why do you guys even care? --Conti|✉ 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the quotation marks don't affect the article at all. I was worried about more sneaking in changes of = to +, which prompted me to work from a trusted copy. Which prompted Daedalus to start an invisible, artificial self-proclaimed "edit war" regarding changes nobody including me could see or be aware of. This is a clear case of WP:OWNership and need for attention distracting us from the task of addressing the problems noted by the GA review. A series of experienced editors with no connection to the University of Miami have pointed out WP:BOOSTER and WP:V problems with UM articles, and people need to roll up their sleeves and address them. Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds just one back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - the reason why I care is that each time Ryulong goes through and edits the article (perhaps just adding invisibile, optional quotation marks or perhaps changing a = to a +) I have to go through all of his changes to check his work and that is very time consuming when we are under a deadline. That is why I started using a copy of the article so that I could keep on going with the business of adding the requested footnotes. But I am willing to stop working from the second copy if Ryulong stops playing these distracting games. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you either stop using the second copy, or otherwise make sure you're not reverting any intermediate edits when you save your changes. It's a wiki. Other people will be editing the page besides you. Jafeluv (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been careful, but there are so many "invisible" changes in Ryulong's edits that it is hard to spot his = to + change, or Daedalus969 dropping one of the two footnotes. Whatever changes they are trying (or not trying) to make is camoflaged by the sea of quotation marks. Take a look at these diffs:

Daedalus' diffs

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Ryulong's diffs

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bringing up the =/+ thing. It was not intentional other than the revert that I performed to the rest of the page to deal with your overwriting with the off-site copy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed interaction and topic ban pending outcome of mediation

Look, we've tried all this several times. You've both been told to not use ANI as a place to hash out your conflicts. You have both been told to seek mediation and dispute resolution. Neither of you has done so. You want admins to take control of the situation? I'm an admin, and I am proposing the following solution:

1. Racepacket and Ryulong are placed under a mutual interaction ban, with the sole exception that both are to participate in a mediation by filing a case at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to deal with these problems. Neither editor is to comment about the other, nor interact with the other, for the duration of the ban.
2. Both Racepacket and Ryulong are topic banned from editing the University of Miami article. Neither editor may make any further edits to that article at all. Furthermore, both are banned from seeking out articles the other has substantially edited for the purpose of antagonizing the other editor.
3. These restrictions are to be lifted upon satisfactory completion of mediation.

Seeking comments from other uninvolved editors and admins... Support? Opposition? --Jayron32 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This whole issue is ridiculous. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater? That is ridiculous. All that should come out of this is that Racepacket should not be using his offsite copy to overwrite everything on the UM article. I've kindly requested that he use the quotation marks and leave a single line break. All that has come out of this is that Racepacket has been constantly accusing me of trying to make the GA nomination fail. All that I have been telling him is that he should not be repeatedly sending this thing to GA review, and having taken it on his shoulders to force the article to become a good article. I am fine with the fact he is making the page better. I have just been asking him to add a few more key strokes when he writes, and adding them back once he's done overwriting the article without those keystrokes. There wouldn't be an edit war if he did not keep an offline copy that he overwrote everything with and there certainly wouldn't be a need to ban either of us from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to point out I tried a dispute resolution tactic. Nothing came of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the situation here is that this is a WP:LAME dispute, which has zero to do with content, and 100% to do with the personality conflict of the two combatants. The solution proposed is because admins aren't here to decide who is right. Frankly, the exact locus of this specific dispute, which is over the use of quotemarks in the ref name= tag is the most pointless edit war, maybe ever. It doesn't matter who is right, but given that you two have a several months long history, and neither side appears to want to back down, the only solution seems to be to end the problem by ending the problem. The U of M article will have someone else who is interested in it; I am unconcerned if the two of you no longer get to edit it. Indeed, given the absolute mess this dispute is causing, I am rather sure the article would be better off if it is not edited by either of you while you two are disputing. I recommend bilateral mediation, since an RFC is really about one user tattling on another, which is why it isn't helping solve the problem. When and if you two can figure out how to coexist and not generate these conflicts, THEN you can both go back to editing the article. But it is clear this conflict has nothing to do with this specific article, and everything to do with the conflict between the two of you. So, if the two of you can agree to mediation, work it out in MEDCAB or MEDCOM, and reach a mutually agreeable resolution to your conflicts, the article can be edited harmoniously. At this point, there is no reason to let the article continue to be edited by either of you, since neither of you is really trying to edit the article, you're both just trying to one-up the other. Lets solve the conflict FIRST, then we can get to the article LATER. That's my justification for proposing the above sanctions. It's no use claiming the "I'm more right so I shouldn't be sanctioned here" from either side; since as far as I can see neither side in the conflict can claim any moral high ground. So lets quit it with that, end the conflict, and worry about the article later. Mkay? --Jayron32 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a solution to Racepacket such that he simply stops utilizing his off-site copy and edits the article as everyone else does. This would end the issue of his massive and unilateral reformatting of the article and the WP:LAME edit war that he and I have been involved with. However, he has not appeared to respond to this suggestion. If he manages to pay attention for five seconds and see my comment here and respond in a clear and coherent matter, I would be glad to have this stop. I'm not seeking any moral high ground. I'm just seeking that he see someone else's opinion instead of thinking he is the one who is the end-all be-all for the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not hearing me. This isn't about these edits. You and Racepacket have been disputing for a long time. The conflict between you two is the problem; it has nothing at all to do with this batch of edits. If it was this one batch of edits, then we could solve it by facing that. Its about the fact that neither of you wishes to back down against the other over any issue. This is the merely today's one thing; if we did decide somehow that one of your versions of the article was favored, we'd just be back here tomorrow on a different problem or a different article. The problem is the conflict, not the article, so we need to end the conflict. Seek mediation so you can work together harmoniously, or stop working together. That's the only two solutions I see... --Jayron32 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know what the fuck will resolve it. I just have been finding things that need fixing (the reference formatting), things that would be better suited to other articles (like this block of only references), or things that are trivial or poorly referenced and I feel should be removed ([93]) in his edits and he starts accusing me of sabotaging the GA review.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the interaction ban and topic ban. Judging from WP:Requests for comment/Racepacket it's unlikely that calm will be restored any time soon at the University of Miami article. This dispute can't be allowed to continue on the admin noticeboards without action being taken. I'd withdraw my support if Ryulong and Racepacket would suddenly agree to work together harmoniously on the GA nomination, but that's not going to happen. The October, 2009 RFCU on Racepacket (opened by Ryulong) shows that the underlying dispute has been going on for many months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ryulong said, "Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater?" but shouldn't we have sensitivity for WP:COI and the need for objectivity necessary to avoid further WP:BOOSTER problems. We have a number of experienced users noting WP:V and WP:BOOSTER problems with the UM article, and these concerns need to be addressed. I have asked Ryulong and others to join me in this work, but so far I seem to be the only one working on finding reliable sources for the UM article. I don't OWN the UM article and want multiple other people working to improve it. In a prior dispute (involving the Miami Hurricanes football article), I suggested repeatedly that we use mediation, but Ryulong rejected the proposal. I am not sure what dispute there is to mediate -- the current goals are not being disputed: Wikipedia expects articles to meet WP:V; Wikipedia aspires to have all articles meet Good Article criteria; Wikipedia does not want copy and paste from the UM website. Somebody in authority will say whether quotes are mandatory or optional in <ref> tags -- from what I read it's currently optional. We need to get on with these goals. 3) I thought that Ryulong and I had worked the quotation marks issue out until Daedalus969 started his WP:POINT edits. I am willing to continue working on the UM article to meet the matters raised in the GA review. Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Aside from the ridiculous quotation marks business, are you saying that Ryulong has been POV pushing? out of interest, why are you removing the quotation marks? It's not normal practice, even if it doesn't cause an issue. Hopefully we'll never move to a strict XML format that requires the quotation marks, else we're going to have to put them back in again. Would it hurt you to use quotation marks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain - I am a bit involved, therefore I will not comment support or oppose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support interaction ban and topic ban. (1 & 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you do not support the lifting of the ban at any point? That would seem counterintuitive to the mediation seeking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would've only supported 3 if it's the community who comes back here and decides that the condition has been satisfied; I am not comfortable leaving that in the hands of either the parties, mediators, or any other committees. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have been following this drama from afar for a bit and, while I tend to think one editor is a bit more "in the right" than the other in general, there to me at this point seems no possible amicable solution. This particular conflict -- that it even exists -- is strongly suggestive of that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual end

Per the discussion that was taking place at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action) and User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket, and I hope with Tbsdy lives's comments above, I would believe that this is done with. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise and still believes that a ban is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not convinced that the underlying issues have/are been/being addressed in the long term. But I am very open to being convinced. I'd like to hear others views on this matter; and also, would letting you both edit together unsupervised (or without a mediator) be a good idea, given the history? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what the underlying issues are at this point. Racepacket has been adding content to/removing content from University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have it in my Watchlist and I see what he has done. I come in and perform grammatical fixes or as I state in my comments to Jayron32 that I move it to other pages or remove it due to triviality I perceived from the content. The "dispute" results from his stubbornness (which I attempted to bring up in the RFC) and my reaction to it. His goal for the article to be of a better quality is admirable. However he can't take "no" for an answer unless a consensus tells him he should stop. I know the quotation mark thing is incredibly lame, but he was ignoring me on his talk and accusing me of wrong doing. Again, at this point the issue seems to have ended and I don't see how preventing anyone from editing a single page is going to resolve matters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racist editor in need of a vacation

Unresolved

 – blocked a week

Neyagawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to push some pov in a controversial area (classification of the Korean language) and after being reverted for not discussing it, he decided to throw some racist comments down on the pages of a couple of users who reverted him [94], [95], [96]. I can't really see any value in his further participation.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and my reversion and note on his page garnered the same [97].--Crossmr (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week, this is clearly unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how few his contributions number (only a little over a hundred I think in the last year) and the obvious hatred there, not sure how much effect that is going to have.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just a first warning block basically. If he continues like this, he'll immediately be indef'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he's asking to be unblocked [98]...--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock declined, left my rationale in the decline message. --Taelus (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They listed another unblock request shortly after my decline however. --Taelus (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also declined. EyeSerene^talk 12:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a closer look at this editors contribs, I'm not sure this is resolved. It seems the editor is engaged mostly in edits that seem to damage articles in attempts to promote (in some cases falsely) Korea, and remove references to Japan from existing articles. They've frequently been reverted as vandalism. See this series of edits on Taipei 101 [99], and this series of edits on movable type [100] or in this edit where he removes cited content without explanation [101], which may have something to do with his anti-chinese bias, or here [102] here removes a map for no reason, and here again on movable type he removes a reference to china [103]. The more I look, the more I'm convinced there is nothing useful coming from this editor. Also this attempt at name POV pushing on a couple articles [104], [105]--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but as Future Perfect notes above this block is in the nature of a shot across the bows. If they resume in the same vein when/if they return, the next block will probably be indef. It doesn't hurt to give people a chance to reform though. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I missing something here? I was indeffed for far less. I realize my block was overturned, but this seems pretty egregious. Multiple uses of "chink", a slur of the same severity as "faggot" or "nigger" seems thoroughly deserving of an indef the first time. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to be all comparative (WP:NOTTHEM) but...well, as you said, YOU were unblocked. I HIGHLY doubt this guy will be--unlike you, he meant HIS stuff to be taken non-satirically. (And incidentally, can I throw in a much-belated :::THWAP::: on the head for that OMG-WTF-were-you-thinking attempt-at-humor diff? Because I obviously missed the Drama Club meeting that led to your indef, and...well, there's a long story attached to why I would have argued on your behalf, but before you were allowed to go free I would have subjected you to proper justice: a skull-thwap with a frozen food item of some substantial mass. Because...seriously, dude. "LOL" and "cringe" only belong together for SPOKEN humor; in print, they go wrong the moment before you start to type them. Words to live by from the terminally inappropriate...) GJC 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending my actions at all. I was wrong, I apologized, and I didn't repeat it. That doesn't change the fact that there were many, many people calling for (and wheel-warring over) my head. I'm simply surprised that such vitriolic hate speech is given so little attention in comparison to my experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had two of the dumbest blocks I've seen in the history of Wikipedia, so it doesn't really compare in my mind. But this editor should probably be indeffed. Grandmasterka 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I mean it seems like this account is almost a vandalism only account. He's made a little over 100 contribs and in that time, it looks like any major edit he's made has been reverted for one of these reasons with only a couple of trivial fixes standing, and in addition to that he's decided to make some rather blatant racist attacks when he didn't get his way, then carry on on his talk page when he wasn't unblocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rama - again

Resolved

 – Sanction enacted: Rama banned from using the di-replaceable fair use tag.

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

I've noticed that despite ongoing discussion about Rama's behaviour and the misuse of the fair use dispute template that he continue to do add this tag to images.

I propose that we enact a ban on him using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag as he clearly is not able to use if correctly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this needs to end, post haste. It's gone on long enough and is highly disruptive. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Doing this on the heels of the RFC is not wise, and shows a tendentious will to defy the community on this matter. -- Atama頭 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He is well aware of the lack of support for his particular interpretation of the NFCC policy. He is well entitled to have his opinion on it, and I appreciate that he has a different opinion, but rather than working to change existing policy from the inside, its clear he wants to enforce his own view on the policy from without, by forcing his view. It started with outright deletions, when it became clear that was causing a problem, he has shifted to tag-bombing such articles. NFCC-tagging and deletions is good work, and much needed, but Rama has breached into a side of the work that has little broad support, and it would be best if he disengaged. I would support his right to continue to argue for changes in the policy in discussion settings, but to act as if the policy supports his view, when it does not appear to, is clearly disruptive and he needs to slow down. --Jayron32 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the comments already given. He is clearly acting against strong consensus in opposition to his interpretation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, he knows that he is not backed-up by the community on this, and doing it after the RFC is ludicrous. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (non-admin) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tbsdy, what you are doing is harassment, intimidation and wikistalking. I will report further such behaviour.

Furthermore, you have given ample proof before that you are incapable of judging whether an image is replaceable or not, going as far as speedily removing a tag for an image claimed as Fair Use for an image for which a better version was available on Commons under a Free licence (of the very same image). We have Free replacement readily available, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, an obvious crop of File:Mogador-2.jpg. Your attempts at proving the done to be impossible is just ridiculous, but how you persist in doing it after being pointed to particularly egregious consequences of your incompetence is blamable. It is outrageous that people make claims about images being impossible to replace without have first looked it up on Commons. Rama (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's really not. If you want to misuse a template even when you are in the midst of a user RFC on this sort of thing, expect others to start looking into what you are doing around this area. That's all I've done, and I noticed that you have continued to add in the tag, which was promptly removed by an entirely uninvolved editor who told you to take the image to FFD.

If you feel that you need to report me to someone, somewhere then please go ahead. I feel that my actions stand up to scrutiny, and if they don't then I will ensure that I take corrective action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) You admit that you have been wikistalking

2) You forget to say that the tags that I have added have been vindicated. You are therefore reporting me for a perfectly appropriate use of the template. That constitutes harassment. Rama (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wikistalking to keep an eye on a user whose edits have in the past proven problematic. From WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. –xeno^talk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Xeno's interpretation above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming TB by calling him a stalker is just plain low. You are drawing attention to yourself, of course people are going to watch. This is not admin behavior. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is ridiculous. The point of the image is not that it's 'some guns on a French warship' - it's that particular model, used in the article on that particular model. Unless Rama is aware of a free version showing that model of ship's artillery, the odds are well against there being a free version, given the circumstances and all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that I provide such a file right above, do you ? Rama (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would support asking Rama to use FFD instead of the speedy queues (as I recommended to him earlier), because it leads to less drama. That said, I note that the actual cases he picks are at least arguable. In the case of the WWII warship guns cited above, yes, there are free US-Gov pictures of the ships in question, showing the guns fairly clearly [106] (though smaller than in that picture, but then again, the picture hardly reveals any non-trivial structural detail of them either, as far as I can make out). BTW, the replacement image shown by Rama at File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, according to Mogador class destroyer, should be "138 mm (5.4 in) Mle 1934 guns" – that's not quite the required model, but not quite so different either; it's actually the successor model currently treated within the same article Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the fair use image is of a Fantasque class destroyer, the predecessor of the Mogador. Not sure if there are significant differences between them, but they are not the exact same model. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the two types of guns are currently treated in the same article, although the title ostensibly refers only to one of them, so both qualify as illustrations for that article. And we have free images of ships with the other, earlier type of gun too, albeit small ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see that he used again the speedy tag in that way during the RfC ("Outside view by Xeno" and "Outside view by Tbsdy lives" in his RfC). Since he insists in doing that, we'll (regretfully) have to force him to send instead the images to WP:FFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been requested to stop using this template. There have only been numerous attempts to (1) caracterise my use if the template as abusive, and to (2) cite my continuous use as a proof that I am a "ROUGE ADMIN" of some sort. However, as for (1), my use of the template has been vindicated in numerous occasions, while my detractors have repeatedly illustrated that they label some image "irreplaceable" while we do in fact have replacement readily available; and as for (2), since I have never been formally requested to refrain from using the template because of the process at hand, I fail to see what I am doing wrong.

Your position here amounts to saying that frivolous claims of misbehaviour are binding and sufficient to prevent people from contributing. Rama (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Rama, if you find fair uses that you believe are replaceable, please list them at WP:FFD where other users can double check your work. In cases where you are correct the image will be deleted anyway, and everybody wins. The point of doing this is that the community does not currently have faith in you getting the call right on every occasion and has accordingly asked you several times not to continue acting as you have been doing. If you listen to the community you will in time regain their trust, if you do not listen then it is only a matter of time until you get blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The community has done nothing of the sort. A small group of users have congregated in several instances, such as the present one, to form a so-called "consensus" which is limited in scope and time, informal, and directly contradicts the policy. The statements on which this limited congregation have "achieved consensus" have in numerous instances been reverted by other admins.

Of these limited congregations, some individuals have called on me to stop using templates over some particular incidents in which they were proven wrong. I do not consider that to constitute a request from "the community". The community is not appropriately represented by a handful of its less informed participants congregating outside of any proper process.

In the present state of affairs, I might renounce dealing with frivolous Fair Use claims, either in part or altogether. It must be noted, however, that this is the result of the pressure of a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy on WP:NFC. There is "consensus" enough to circumvent the policy by harassing people who enforce it, but not enough to change the policy. There are numerous quotes to prove that this is not a problem specific to me:

• "I've often wanted to remove that one (...), and I suspect I'd be reverted", SlimVirgin [107]
• "I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care." Hammersoft [108]
• "Removed and watchlisted. (ESkog) Be prepared!!!! Damiens.rf " [109]

Wikipedia is supposedly "not a democracy"; in the present state of affairs, it is worse than this, it is the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach? –xeno^talk 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Curious - Rama: if you had found a free replacement, why didn't you actually replace the image before tagging the one you felt was replaceable for deletion? –xeno^talk 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have to. The image was replaceable whether a Free replacement was or was not available at the time. It is explicitly specified that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." [110]. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has to do anything. I ask again: if you knew there was a free replacement, why didn't you replace it? –xeno^talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel Rama's responses are indicative of the problems relating to their editing in these areas; faced with an overwhelming majority pointing out concerns and suggesting alternatives, Rama complains about the motives of one or two of the more vocal opponents of his actions. This is more troubling as they are an admin, whose major role is to enforce consensus - I suggest that they need to be able to recognise it first, and be able to abide by its conclusion. I see neither here.
  I also note xeno's excellent point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your answer amounts to "screw the policy if a local and temporary group can assemble and overwhelm a single admin attempting to enforce it". Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as Rama spends much of the time above blaming a WP:CABAL, rather than listening to what the community's telling him. I'd also suggest that further comments down the line of "a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy" be considered as personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible compromise: Rama can keep a subpage of images he feels are replaceable, preferrably, but not necessarily with a pointer to the free-replacement and other individuals who do work in NFCC can watch the page and ultimately place tags if they agree the image is replaceable. This will perhaps help Rama to align his beliefs about replaceability with those of the community. –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My one and only encounter with him was quite annoying, and I am not at all surprised that others feel the same way. In view of his continuing behavior, this seems a good solution. Ray^Talk 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. His actions are extreme and seem to be a little POINTy; he must have know, for example, that picking on Holocaust images would be controversial, especially during a user RfC about this very issue. I support Xeno's idea of Rama keeping a subpage of images that he feels should be dealt with, then uninvolved editors can decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sadly. I would hope that an admin would respond to the communities requests to stop, however since the response has been pretty much "I am right an you are wrong" I see little alternative. Fair use is not enforced by the fiat of an admin who is sure they are correct, it is enforced by consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Chillum has actually said what I was thinking, so I'm not going to add to that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural request

Could whatever uninvolved administrator that reviews and acts on this thread also close and enact the results of the discussion over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama (which has been open almost 2 months). Any action taken here would probably be the same taken as a result of that RFC, so the closing of this thread should be comensurate with the closing of that RFC. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd opened a proposal to close the RfC/U on the talk but participants wanted more time...? Technically, this sanction proposal only addresses one of the issues raised in the RfC, so there's no need to wait for the results of this to close the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while this topic ban is related to the RFC, it is but one aspect of a larger issue. The RFC should continue or end on its own merit as should this motion here(imho). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin who's inclined to close;

1. I'm going to wait for 24 h from the original post here to close
2. If I close, I would note on the RFC but not close it directly; anyone else would be free to do so after the note.

Someone else is free to act sooner if you like. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting 24 hours from the original post is a good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LivingMuse removing AFD comments.

User:LivingMuse has now twice removed my comments in this AFD [111], [112]. WP:DUCK strongly suggests that this user is a puppet of User:GoldbergEva the accounts both started editing within days of each other and both are single purpose accounts that edit exclusively on topics relating to Katia Tiutiunnik Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not a sock of that particular editor, it's a sock of someone and an abusive one at that. Blockify. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adilette

Just looking for a little advice on this article. I stumbled across it a while back when it was created. The language was very poor and notability was an issue. I have suggested it be merged with Adidas, or the article improved, but several IP's, all originating in Madrid, Spain keep removing the templates with minimal edits to the actual page. My suggestions were added to the Talk Page only to be removed by one of these IP's. I think their grasp of English is not exactly great, the article is poorly written, and is only really notable enough to be mentioned in a sub-section of Adidas, especially considering the only people (or is it just one person...??) editing it are not really up to the standards expected. I don't know enough about the actual subject to edit it myself - I have no interest in a type of Adidas sandals to write an article on them(!), but yeah - leave to edit with templates (I'll keep replacing them and issue warnings if removed) or merge with Adidas? _Will^dow (Talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an editor (admins have no special remit over article content) I'd say the current sources don't support any of the content, much of which is puffery or unintelligible. The article looks to be a direct copy of the Spanish Wikipedia's version - possibly even run through an online translator. My personal opinion is that in its current form a merge/redirect would be the kindest option, though even that will need decent sources to be found.

Speaking as an admin, I suspect that the author may be this chap, who from the username might have a WP:COI. However, I think the real problem is their lack of facility with the English language; we can't assume they've understood the warnings and advice well enough to realise what the concerns are. This is itself a WP:COMPETENCE issue, so depending on how things develop admin action may need to be taken. Ideally a Spanish-speaking editor (anyone?) is needed to help explain WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:V; if proper sources can be found (shouldn't be too hard given the brand) and someone is willing to tidy the article up, the problem would disappear. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Afd'd it. PROD removed by Spanish IP - probably a sockpuppet of the creator Uder:Adilette1972. Any comments on AfD here. Mentioned perhaps a sentence or two should be in the Adidas page. Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stifle and his rollback removal

Resolved

 – Rollback bit restored.

This user/admin had alleged that I rollbacked libelous material at Talk:Harvey Dorfman. Since the alleged rollback edit has since completly been deleted, I have no way of actually looking at what I may have done wrong, nor do I have a fair chance to defend myself among the broader community as a whole. I did recieve this message:

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

In order to encourage me to slow down (code for teaching me a lesson}, the admin removed my rollback. Seems couter productive to me, especially since I have made thousands of good rollback edits in the past year. This, I think, only helps the vandals in the end, since that means that there will be one less set of eyes on their vandalism.

The real question is, what was restored with my use of rollback, and how was it edited before before I rolled it back? I have no real way of knowing, nor will most anyone else now. I know that admins have the ability to look these things up, so I hope that this will be looked at.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the material should not have been restored; that being said, repeating what it is here defeats the purpose of the original suppression. It contained unsourced accusations of impropriety. –xeno^talk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a lot to add to this; this admin-only link shows the rollback in question, accompanied by this template warning. I will defer to the consensus here (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that Jojhutton's rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). Stifle (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a completely inappropriate and indefensible restoration by any standard, and hopefully temporary removal of rollback will encourage Jojhutton to look more carefully next time, as no one in their right mind would have restored it and issued a warning if they had. The previous editor had blanked the page by the way. What's more surprising is that the content had been there for six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Stifle's actions. It's rollback is easy and quick, hence the need for additional caution to ensure what is restored isn't material that was, in practice, courtesy blanked. MLauba (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to defend myself against invisible evidence. Please look at how the page was blanked, was an edit summery used properly? I have no idea at this point, nor willl 95% of those who see this thraed, who aren't admins.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary was not used. However, when reverting blanked text, you should always look to see why. Per policy: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." The material that was removed was completely unsourced accusations of criminal impropriety. I suspect if you had read it, you would not have restored it. Accidents happen, but when you revert blanking you are responsible for the material that you restore. If you had been under the impression that blanking without edit summary was automatically vandalism, then reconsideration is a good idea. (Adding, from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a one-shot IP zaps a large section of uncontroversial-looking text, that's usually vandalism. It's always good to check it first, though, before reverting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it usually is, but in this case, though, it clearly wasn't. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't see it, I have to take your word for it. :) One thing, though - If you blindly revert, you can see the results of the reversion, so there's really no good excuse for not taking note of what was deleted or restored. You can always fix a mistake by reverting yourself, or if it's not clearly vandalism but needs reverting, by reverting yourself and then reverting again but with an explanation in the edit summary. That may seem tedious, but it makes it less likely you'll end up here with an accusation of rollback abuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this myself, I agree entirely with what Moonriddengirl's said here. I'm not sure if I'd personally have removed rollback for that one incident, but it was certainly a pretty egregious piece of vandalism to restore, and I guess it's worth learning the lesson. I'd certainly support restoring your rollback in a few days as Stifle initially stated. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just use WP:TW instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse temporary removal of rollback. After a quick review of Jojhutton's reverts, I suggest that rollback is reinstated in the near future so that they can continue fighting vandalism. Also suggest that Jojhutton is provided the deleted content privately, to clarify the reason for removal. Otherwise the suspension may seem rather Kafkaesque. decltype (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moonridden Girl also. But I don't think that anyone should be given the deleted content and I am going to email OTRS suggesting that it is oversighted. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why email OTRS? Just email Special:Emailuser/Oversight if you think it qualifies. Make sure to give them diffs to the deleted revisions. –xeno^talk 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant oversight, sorry. That's who I emailed. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I respect your judgment in this matter. decltype (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I support giving back rollback right now, instead of waiting for a few days. Jojhutton isn't a child, he doesn't need Wii privileges taken away for a week to make sure he learns his lesson. Unsubstantiated accusations against a living person are bad. Blanking text without an edit summary is bad. Blindly reverting it without reading what you're restoring is bad. Of the three, blanking text without a summary is least bad, by far. Moonriddengirl, above, nailed it, so any further discussion is unnecessary. I think it's safe to assume Jojhutton knows he made a mistake, and from the number of admins commenting, knows it was a fairly obvious and serious mistake. Let him learn from it.

  So, is this one of those "must have consensus" things, or is it one of those "any admin willing to overturn" things? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us are waiting for Jojhutton to change their line of argument from, "How can I defend myself against edits I can't see" to something including an undertaking to be more careful in the future. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite patronising to remove his rollback to “encourage” him to be more careful. A polite reminder would have been sufficient. Heavy handed and condescending removal of R/B from a consistent vandal fighter for one slip-up. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may be a wonderful vandal fighter, but I think the comments about this matter at the talk page reflect a clear misunderstanding of practice, here...something beyond one slip-up. He evidently was under the misimpression that any blanking without edit summary could and should be automatically reverted. Hopefully he will know better now (both based on policies above and Wikipedia:Rollback itself: "When using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies."), but I would also like to see some indication that he does. We all make mistakes, but there's no harm in waiting for an "Oh, I get it" before restoring the status quo and marking the matter resolved. I'm also a bit concerned about his characterizing an expressly temporary removal of rollback as "being led to slaughter". I hope that he realizes that it is not an attack against him to make sure he is using the tool correctly, and his note that Stifle had "convienently erased" the evidence in first instance seems a bit out of accord with WP:AGF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't restore without such an explicit indication, then; in any case, I see he hasn't edited since your clear summary above. Keep in mind he can't see the deleted content, and the rollback removal came out of the blue; there was no explanation first. I can certainly put myself in his shoes and understand him getting his back up. Permission removal is not a substitute for discussion. In fact, it can be an excellent way to make sure the other person is too offended to listen to what you're saying. This could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd have been a bit shocked, too. :) That said, I think it's a good thing that Stifle decided to engage him about it. If he had not, Jojhutton might not have realized it was his approach that was the problem rather than this particular set of circumstances. I don't think anybody is a bad guy here. There was just some clarification needed about the way blanking reversions work, and it really should be easy to settle at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle already said that he is fine with another admin restoring it without further discussion, however I would also like to see some commitment to be more circumspect in future rollbacks. There is a setting (I believe it is the default?) that shows you the result of the rollback. You should take a quick peek to make sure you've done the right thing! –xeno^talk 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was rolled back was pretty serious, but I take it that this was an accident and not deliberate? I'm sure we've all hit the rollback link wrongly a few times as admins, it seems quite unfortunate that this one happened but it doesn't sound malicious to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of misuse; his talk page and comments above suggests that he has not understood how reverting blanked material works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tbsdy lives, plenty of admins occaisionally accidently rollback things they shouldn't, or block the person reporting vandalism instead of the vandal, or make all sorts of other mistakes. We don'r remove their tools, however obtuse their response. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A silly comparison. You're comparing apples to uranium, or apples to the early works of Raymond Carver. One set of tools we give to people who have a heartbeat and can demonstrate that they don't write "poopy" on the wall; the other takes 5000 edits of experience and a hell of a gauntlet to run. Tan | 39 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's silly of me to expect admins to treat non-admins with the same courtesy, understanding and patience with which they treat admins, you are quite right, and it's entirely proper that we extend greater forgiveness to misuse (accidental or not) of tools which have the real potential to cause lasting damage to the encyclopaedia and the community than we do to a one-off mistake that was easily corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue, as I can pretty much feel the collective wince of all admins when they saw the mistake that was made - a mistake that many of us could have easily made also. That's not the issue - the issue is that the mistake needs to be acknowledged before they get the tool back again. That's all! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Restore the R/B and continue the discussion with him away from here. That would be AGF - and not in glare of a public forum, which would have had the singular benefit of preventing Tan’s typical, wholly unconstructive, sideswiping generalisation of editors that carry out basic counter-vandalism. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These edits have now been oversighted as they contain potentially libelous, unsourced accusations of serious criminal acts - Alison ^❤ 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks, Alison. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless we're going to remove admin tools for one bad protection/block/deletion, Stifle's action was inappropriate in the extreme. As someone else said, Jojhutton isn't a child, and removal of the rollback bit shouldn't be treated as some kind of friggin' timeout or something. UnitAnode 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a misunderstanding that could have been resolved by discussion without the need for administrative action. I believe removing the rollback for what appears to be a first time mistake, that was done in good faith, was a little harsh. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure why this particular situation is generating so much excitement, but Wikipedia:Rollback feature says, emphasis in original, " Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." It also says, "An administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment, via the interface at Special:UserRights." I wouldn't have immediately revoked rollback myself, but I don't think there was anything inappropriate in Stifle's action. There was clear misuse of the rollback feature, even if it was well-intended, and there evidently needed to be some clarification that blanking should not be blindly reverted, but reviewed, even without edit summary. This looks like a misunderstanding of the tool's usage, not an accident. Unlike adminship, rollback really is "no big deal" (and anyone who thinks adminship is no big deal has either never experienced the modern RfA or has a very thick skin). At this point, it seems like a simple "message received" is all that's needed for everybody to go on happily about their day. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a perfect example of why I refuse to have any of these gaudy bits; they're just treated as baubles to be handed out and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator who's having a bad hair day. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollback enables you to revert all the entries most recently made by one guy in an article. It's basically just a time-saver, i.e. you don't have to go back to the version just before and then edit it and save it. Just one click and those entries be reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't take me for a fool; I know perfectly well what rollback is, and that it's a complete waste of time when compared to Twinkle. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have sometimes taken you for a malcontent, but not a fool. What I was trying to explain is that rollback is useful, and is worth hanging onto by refraining from misusing it, while losing it is not the end of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

• Unless Jojhutton has a history of misfeasance with regards to use of the rollback feature, the revocation of the right - even temporary - was a heavyhanded solution to a single error. The situation could have been handled in a much simpler and less dramatic fashion by making him aware of the error and encouraging him to be more deliberate with his use of the rollback feature in the future. I would support the immediate restoration of the access. Shereth 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same view as Shereth on this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jojhutton, please be more careful with this incredibly valuable tool. Tan | 39 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We need to accept that, from time to time, people will make mistakes. The material certainly should not have been restored, and certainly we can and should bring it to someone's attention when they re-introduce such a problem, but absent some history of malicious or careless misuse of a tool, immediately removing it with no warning seems excessive. One over-hasty response probably won't fix an over-hasty revert, but hopefully everyone's got that figured out by now. For the record, I emailed Jojhutton a (very truncated) summary of the revision's contents. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalism

Requesting aid with the latest wave of banned IP disruption on Balkans articles. More specifically the newest reincarnation of "User:ANTE RAKELA", IP 193.206.126.34 [113]. Repeated section blanking, reference removal, and classic vandalism on several articles. Is an IP block a possibility? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read user talk:Jimbo Wales#Ex Yugoslavia case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit techno

Resolved

 – reverted -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent IP address edit vandalized the Detroit techno article. Can it be saved? B-Machine (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the earlier version. See Help:reverting for more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse by User:SunnieBG

Hello there, per WP:NPA I wouldn't have reacted to some minor personal attacks, but I think SunnieBG (talk · contribs)'s language involves a physical threat and is particularly offensive. The evidence is on my talk and in this edit summary for everybody to see.

Please not that *this is not a first offense*. The user has physically threatened me in the past as well. I don't believe this has been provoked by me in any way, my actions have always been justified and I have not responded to the personal attacks of the user. Thus, there is basically no conflict between me and the user to resolve: the behaviour is entirely one-sided.

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with your recent repeated blanking of material that included a reference for some of it (in Bulgarian, but Google Translate was able to handle it well enough), but those diffs are far over the top. Blocked for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Ip: 64.128.245.110 is back again editing evading topic ban

Anon Ip: 64.128.245.110 is back again editing on jou/Jaj pages here [114] and here [115] both edits have been tagged (Tag: references removed) The latter edit also includes pejorative phrase "using" with no ref violating [[WP:BLP]

Here is last weeks archived discussion the Ip was blocked for two days for evading topic ban. Reason "48 hour block for evasion of User:BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) topic ban."

[116]

It appears that another anon IP reverted a few of the reference removals.

will notify Ip on talk page now

Catapla (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users informed on talk pages of this discussion. Catapla (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also left message at User talk:97.118.8.109. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also advised of mediation page User:FayssalF/JK Catapla (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused, did the new edits undo/revert those made last week, by another anon. IP? If so then I'm not sure it's BKLisenbee (at least that's how it appears on the surface). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never mind my last comment. 97.118.8.109 (talk) undid one of last week's edits by 64.128.245.110 (talk) (which was blocked last week as a BKLisenbee). 64.128.245.110 in turn undid the edit by 97.118.8.109. The latter has made a series of edits in Jajouka/Joujouka related articles that seemingly target the edits made by 64.128.245.110 last week. I believe semi-protection may be in order. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Semi-protection is only for vandalism, and I don't think this qualifies as such (disruptive as it may be). Thus, we are faced with full page protection. However, I can see it remaining in place indefinitely, unless and until the content dispute is resolved, and I don't imagine indefinite protection would be accessible. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 64.128.245.110 for 1 week. 97.118.8.109 is suspicious as well but I'm not prepared to speculate at this point. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome User:FayssalF 's input but a semi protect would at least require users to be registered. Catapla (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting references and secondary source news media links would pass as vandalism as would BLP concerns. Catapla (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangeness at Talk:Kripalu Center and Kripalu Center

After a couple of trips to wp:Wikiquette, wp:COIN, wp:POVN, I find calamitybrook (talk · contribs)'s personal attacks (1 2) and damaging edits (1) to have only slightly improved. Guidance from admins and other fellow editors on the editor's talk page, at COIN, on the article talk page are generally ignored... or the response is so impenetrable (1 2) that it seems so. I see the current state of the article as improved, but still slanted oddly. I hope that a stern warning will make it easier to work through the rest of the sources. (and yes I know that a better approach from myself would have helped) I have not notified the editor of this thread at the editor's firm request.- Sinneed 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool three

I'm fine with people venting in some way and he certainly has a right to do so I think, but I'm not sure if the farewell message on his user page is appropriate. ANI regulars are "power-hungry teenagers without the social skills to survive in the real world", hell is "other Wikipedians", and his detractors are "scum". I'm not going to remove it, but like I said, it doesn't seem appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen worse. Any idea what his specific complaint was about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unwise, but no more than that. His RfA was not going well, and I gave a long explanation of why I felt the community would not support him and so he should withdraw. I didn't word it well, as he felt I was commenting negatively on his mainspace contributions - he has, under his previous account, written several FAs. I have left an apology on his talkpage. If someone close to him whose judgement he trusts blanked the page so fewer people could see it, that might be acceptable, but if anyone else did I think it might just make matters worse. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yeh, I probably would have said no also, if I voted in RfA's. I recommend leaving it be for awhile and see if he decides to come back and edit. If not, it could be cleared after a decent interval. Very few are likely to see it anyway who don't already know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, who cares. Tan | 39 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't, but maybe editors mentioned there care. I just brought it out here for attention. Yeah, leaving it for now seems best.--Atlan (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like the typical screed I've seen since my BBS days: "You didn't make me a moderatorgive me an admin bit! That means you're all power-hungry bastards! You'll be sorry I left!" As long as he's not making personal attacks, I'd say leave it so people can see they were right to vote no in his RfA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc's ongoing abuse

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

I am going to go ahead and end this discussion now. It's moving around in circles and several admins have already chimed in and decided not to act on it at this time. I suggest that Tarc takes this as a civility warning and modifies his behavior in the future. As for many of the other points brought up, they are personal disputes... We are admins, not babysitters. While I understand that you are having a difficult time overcoming your disputes, keep in mind that we don't have any extra dispute resolution tools that you don't already possess. Trusilver 01:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

}}

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do. -- Atama頭 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking his last 50 edits into account (since February 4), User:Tarc has been fouling up talk pages with incivility and personal attacks against all sorts of editors. I know he's done this before, but this is what he's constantly doing right now to degrade the atmosphere of page after page -- it doesn't seem to be a reaction to anything in particular, and only the last two have anything to do with me:

• Violating WP:NPA, WP:CIV: [117] Way to assume good faith there, sport. You're a credit to the project. Edit summary: not
• NPA, CIV: [118] rv - Perhaps you should go write for the National Enquirer then, as that is where this tripe belongs. Has no bearing on the bio of Barney Frank A personal attack on User:ChildofMidnight (as Tarc removed information that a congressman expressed surprise that his lover was growing marijuana in the congressman's home)
• NPA, CIV, WP:TALK: Here's another diff [119] but it's actually better to look at the context: Tarc immediately moves the discussion away from the topic at hand and toward commenting on the other editor in an uncivil way. Here's a recent version of that talk-page section: [120] Tarc does mix in a little discussion of the issue, but it's larded up with so much bile that he can't expect the other party, or anyone else who disagrees with him, to concentrate any more on the issue at hand. His bile just eclipses it.
• NPA, CIV: [121] In removing a polite request on his talk page for Tarc to be polite, the edit summary: the perpetrator does not get to troll the talk pages of others
• NPA, CIV, TALK: [122] Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. The edit summary: Arivaderchi
• TALK, WP:AGF: [123] Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter.

And here's where I come into the picture:

• CIV, TALK: [124] Rejecting your points does not mean I ignored your points. You already waltzed this pedantic dance with Good Ol’factory earlier; we don't need to see Round 2, thanks. Edit summary: pedantry
• CIV: [125] [...] it would do you some good to learn that rather than make personal attacks and call other users trolls. In response to this comment from me [126] in which I said he was trolling. Feel free to look at the context.

Eight examples from the last 50 edits over five days, victimizing various editors. He won't listen to me. Warn him, watch him, and if that doesn't work, block him. And whatever happens, you'll have this as a record if he gets into the same pattern again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the diffs and concerns noted above are valid. Tarc's contribution history shows that he has been pursuing me and disrupting discussions where I'm involved by attempting to smear, bait, and provoke me into conflict. It's something I've tried to get some attention and assistance with for quite a while because it's the kind of harassing and intimidating behavior that degrades collegial work and disrupts encyclopedia building. I don't mind if someone calls me an ass once in a while (if the shoe fits...), but the persistence of this kind of hostile incivility is damaging to the project. And I've seen him do the same kind of thing with other editors, but I try to avoid engaging with Tarc because I don't want to inflame the problem further. I do think some interventions to correct this pattern of interaction would be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc

Tarc is not always Mr. Warmth. He's yelled at me a time or two also. But I don't see anything in the list that's any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Barney Frank won't even mention that his lover was arrested for growing marijuana in the congressman's own home after Tarc attacked the editor who put it there, both in the edit summary and then on the talk page, and reverted the edit. Never mind the content dispute: Why would a third editor want to get involved in that talk page discussion -- so that Tarc could abuse someone else? How is that not harmful to the encyclopedia? How is it no big deal to edit in a way that could goad other editors to respond uncivilly? If you don't mind a filthy editing environment, coddle him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything "filthy" in what Tarc said, no "abuse", just strong opinions. Has Frank been accused of breaking any laws in connection with that alleged incident? If not, then the only reason for posting it is to take the National Inquirer approach to editing the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bugs. Nothing bad in the list of diffs. Indeed, most of them seem completely justified when taken into context. Seems like the genesis of this complaint was a content dispute, and another dispute over retaining a non-neutral, policy-violating category. Recommend the editors avoid each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it's something like six unrelated content disputes, how is it primarily a content dispute? In my own case, this isn't going to help me "win" the content dispute. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on article content and ignore the sniping of other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey has a long history with me. Our most recent interaction was here [127]. I wonder, which of the four editors Tarc was denegrating should avoid him in the future? And this only goes back 50 edits. How many more editors should we be recommend avoid Tarc? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several editors I've had some history with. Rather than trying to control their behavior, generally I control things by staying away from articles they edit. There are a couple of gazillion articles in wikipedia, many of which need much more improvement than the Frank article does, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to editors as "slackjawed retards" seems a bit extreme. Yes, that comment may be from offsite, but it reflects over all attitude and opinion of other editors. How can we have a serious discussion when we know that is what someone thinks of many of us? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it reflects is frustration with POV-pushers and scandalmongers, a frustration which I share, and which I found I was constantly fighting when defending the Obama and the Palin articles, and which is why I don't edit political articles any more, as it's not good for my blood pressure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia Review is populated and run by slackjawed retards, it's also kind of funny. HalfShadow 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their calling. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's nothing compared to the kind of language I use to refer to other editors offsite. Tarc may use any language or say anything he pleases offsite without consequence. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that Tarc has actually been relatively restrained in his comments? If so, it's time for someone to wrap this one up as "no admin action needed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lulz, where to start.
  • Barber, formerly Noroton, has a bee in his bonnet over at a current DRV where his rather unique take on WP:USEFUL is not gaining any traction, which is apparently leading to a bit of frustration and lashing out. He has been repeatedly accusing other users of ignoring him, his points, or to quote Good Ol Factory, "You're free to interpret guidelines in your own way, but don't try to tell other users what they mean or how they must interpret the guideline in context.". It appears that this frustration has led him to dig into my editing history and snip out of context some very disparate quotes, from dealing with persistent SPAs at the Obama talk page, to thwarting ChildofMidnight's attempt to do to Barney Frank what he was sanctioned for doing to Barack Obama last year...to a Stone Temple Pilots discussion? Seriously, Barber, you're getting on my case for responding to another users extremely bad-faith assumption about other users who are on one side of a genre discussion? If you seriously have a beef here, wouldn't WP:WQA have bene a better first step than the morass of AN/I? That you came here first smacks more of "look at me!" than anything else.
  • ChildofMidnight has a rich history in AN/I, which can be perused via the archive box above. It is unfortunate that he still feels he is the victim of a massive cabal, ever since the Obama ArbCom. His counter-reports on others who file reports on him at AN/I or elsewhere have been met with universal rejection. The boy who cried "wolf!" to a T.
  • WR. What I may say or so there, or at ED or anywhere else, has no bearing here. For the record, I disagree with WR more than agree with it, from their providing a safe soapbox to the well-known stalker, harasser, and sock-master Joehazelton to their Think of the children whining about nekkidness in wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum; the only one I would wish to retract would be the edit summary here, that was a bit too confrontational and hip-shooting. The others I am good with. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me. To borrow a line from a movie, it's "a bunch of rinky-dink tabloid garbage." Unless Frank has been charged with a crime, that story is irrelevant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with BB. Time to wrap this one up. Leave the content dispute for the disputants to settle and let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk)
        • Right. Tarc was perhaps ruder than I'd have been, but then I was brought up a very proper Bostonian and am never the least bit rude to anybody. No harm, no foul; de minimis non curat an/i. PhGustaf (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even when Bostonians say "Yankees suck!" they mean it in the best possible way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one note as I see it. I fly pretty loose with civility at times myself, but Tarc is at least as incivil as User:GoRight, who is currently on a one strike then out civility probation. If this had been an WP:RFU and Tarc had been given a week off for the comments above, I would be upholding the block. I don't see any action that really needs to be taken as things stand right now, but I would definitely caution the editor to remember the adage: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Trusilver 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion's been an an exercise in ignoring crucial points, distracting with irrelevant points and coddling. Tarc talks about content disputes as if all this happened on one or two pages. He's been acting like this at nearly every talk page he's been to for days. I had nothing to do with three quarters of the examples of his bad behavior listed above. Our "content dispute" is irrelevant, so why is it necessary to comment on it here? I looked into his edit history because I (correctly) guessed what I'd find there: more than one out of seven of his previous 50 edits was to disparage other editors. Not one, not two, not three, but five. No matter how many times Tarc responds with further attacks on me, that doesn't excuse it. It's a pattern. When it gets to be a pattern it's worth bringing up for review.

Tarc's response is to say I'm "lashing out", except that nothing I've done compares with his bad behavior. If I dislike being attacked, I guess that means I must have a bad motive in looking into and reporting his bad behavior. He goes on to attack ChildofMidnight, again, right on this page, when CoM did or said nothing to provoke the attack. He says the quotes were taken out of context, but he's blowing smoke: Context sometimes explains snapping at one or two people, but not five different, unconnected situations. And in each one, Tarc acted worse than the editors he was interacting with -- there's your context. And he hasn't shown where any "context" either justifies or minimizes his drumbeat of bad behavior. Should I have brought this elsewhere? I thought the WP:TALK violations would be outside the focus of WP:WQA, but I didn't look into it.

I'll consider Trusilver's comment as the warning I was looking for, and Atama's comment at the top, "Nothing for admins to do." as an example of not getting it. If Tarc continues trolling, I'll be complaining again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you continue the bad-faith assumptions, the name-calling, the continued habit of discussing the editors rather than the subject matter, and of course the wiki-stalking, then you can expect a swift return here as well, Mr. Barber. Continued frivolous AN/I filings will not reflect very favorably upon you. I must say that I am beginning to see Wikidemon's predicament a bit better now, after he had to deal with your tenacious harassment of him last year. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ahem. *cough, cough* - would you mind not bringing that old dispute up? JohnWBarber is a fine editor. I have had a good working relationship with him at times, rocky at others but we are not in an active dispute now. Can we please not raise old issues? JWB, would you mind holding off before defending yourself to see if we can encourage Tarc not to stir that pot? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:F6Coloratura80 and their WP:DE and WP:BLANKING behavior

This user, who is unregistered, has been editing the article, Celine Dion for quite some time now. At first, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but after they began revetting long-standing edits, and ignoring other users' requests to explain their edits, I became concerned that they were potentially endangering the article FA status. The user has been ignoring requests to engage in conversations about their edits on the article's talk page, as well as their own page. Despite this, they continue to add information that is either unneccessary or completely false in nature. The edits they create contain nearly all in-line citations, most from the same source, which makes it very difficult to verify. I am worried that their apparent WP:DE is hurting the article's status. Lastly, I am also concerned that this user may be the same exact one that was banned from editing about a month ago. Their actions are very, very similar in nature, and the way they interact with other users, makes me believe that it may be the same person. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate if something could be done to help. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that they are new to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome template to their talk page. If disruption continues, let us know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments [128] [129], especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him [130] [131], leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person [132], although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano

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

I am preemptively archiving this, because Giano is getting very angry - his spelling is off and his grammer is breaking up - and there will be nothing but a huge drama if this is not ended quickly. I should have hoped that there were more people aware of the consequences of putting the words "Giano" and "civility" in close proximity to each other, when the subject is not part of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

---

Giano is trying to unarchive a section of Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks. I have done my second revert, I'm not going to revert again but I'm bringing this here. In my opinion Giano is getting extremely disruptive on that talk page. He's made it reasonably clear that he's going to sit on the discussion and not contribute anything but outrage. IMO he brings nothing productive to the discussion, GoodDay got sick of the conversation and suggested that one section be blanked (which I've done) and has archived part of the other, which is what he's currently reverting.

Can we have an uninvolved admin look into this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Bu merely does not like the fact that he cannot have this all his own way. I do not agree with him, nor shall I. I have been discussed on that page in my absence, now I will be part of that discussion. If Ta-bu does not like that - well tough. He has a narrow view of civility, he needs to see the other side of the coin  Giano  21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo is wrong. As I've stated before, I was not discussing him behind his back - that was not my doing, but other admins. Personally, I stayed away from that discussion other than to ask for clarification.- Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Djsasso to take a peek. I'll abide by his decision. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not Giano's differing view of civility, such commentary would be welcome, it is more that he is directing his commentary towards the people making the proposal and not the proposal itself. While it is hard to get something productive accomplished when someone is doing this, I suggest we just try to ignore his outrage unless he decides to comment on the content instead the contributors. This proposal has a lot of merit and potential and I would hate to see the "standard drama" come along and spoil it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish! They discussed me ad nauseum, without evena comment on my talk - is that civil? Now Distressing as this may be for you all to have an alternative view, I don't think hiding it under an archive banner will advance your cause very far.  Giano  21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's unfortunately part of the issue. No matter what the issue, he is making personal commentary against various editors, regardless of the relevance. It's totally derailing the discussion and making it hard for us to formulate the text for the policy. I can understand that he doesn't like the whole idea, and that's fine, but I don't think he should be allowed to camp on the page and disrupt proceedings to the point where everything comes to a standstill. Examples of him making ad hominem attacks have been him calling me "naive", and his attack on the suggestion of another editor for a starring system, which while obviously had no chance of happening was extremely mean-spirited, unpleasant and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not making personal commentary - replying to you. Now you discuss me with no diffs, just count how many times my name is mentioned with no supporting evidence, and now in fascist way try to silence any replies. You civility? that is a big joke.  Giano </

I should've foreseen the drama. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You lot discussed me first just to make cheap points - now I reply and you are all bleating and crying.  Giano  21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay has made no comments about you personally, in fact most editors have not. It's unfortunate that it did happen, but has nothing to do with either me or GoodDay. Can you clarify though - does this mean that you are going to continue making inflammatory statements on this page like you have been? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has made inflammatory statement. This shows how over sensitive you are on the whole civility matter.  Giano  21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you tried :-) You've done a good job trying to mediate here, but it looks like it's not working. Phrases like "priggish hypocrisy" have never been helpful in discussions, and of course the calm discourse that was occuring has now got out of hand. Which is sad really, because it's a discussion worth having. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a "virtual archive"? That's where those who think the section should be archived stop posting there, and pay it no further attention, rather than try to force archiving on others. Those who think the section should not be archived can continue to post there, at the risk that perhaps no one will pay them any attention. I make no judgement on the accusations of "incivility" and "false claims of incivility" occurring there, because my irony-meter just exploded and took a large part of my brain with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy to agree to that very sensible suggestion.  Giano  21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:76.102.12.35

This IP has been busy tagging articles for speedy deletion but absolutely refuses to notify the original authors, despite being politely asked to do so numerous times.

Quote: "Yes. I have no desire to become a mentor/tutor/personal WP guide. Been there, done that, waaaay over it." [133]

Also revert vandalism without placing warnings (hardly ever). This is very uncooperative. One reply to a complaint was "well, though shit." Messages are deleted from the talkapge with "cleaning out the detrius".

This a) seems to imply that a former user has resorted to being an IP and more importantly that WP:BITE (which isn't policy, but consensus) is completely ignored.

(notified)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.102.12.35 does not strike me as an adherent of WP:Etiquette. The impression he gives is that he is very BITE-y. Jarkeld (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user also has started tagging articles for AfD, listing them on the AfD page, but won't actually start the specific AfD pages - he leaves that for other editors to complete. Not the first time he's done this, either. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors can't create new pages, and therefore can't create the AFD pages. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we know that, and so does s/he. But other people aren't this user's footsoldiers. Of course, the IP doesn't deem it necessary to dignify said footsoldiers' concerns with a comment here. Par for course... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MO sounds vaguely familiar, as does the speech. Sound like anyone recently blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry guys, while it is suggested that you notify the original author when CSD tagging, it is not policy. If they don't want to do it, and they've been advised that it would be nice if they did, then that's all there is to do about it. Nor do they have to respond to this thread if they don't want to. I don't see anything actionable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James dalton bell returns as IP sock

Please see here, thanks, and please block this obvious sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed him, he's editing Jim Bell again and seems to be skirting right on the edge of WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm certain it's him alright. IP blocked for a week. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, 71.36.122.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making same edits, using same edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits themselves seem fairly minor. I should note that there are {{fact}} statements in there... these should be removed until a source can be found, per BLP guidelines. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second IP also blocked. Both clearly related, in the same Qwest subnet even. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, scratch that. They both have the same Qwest hop #11 [134] [135] gateway, though. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another: 97.120.244.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Woogee (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad uploads by Rock&MetalFan

Resolved

 – 31 hours block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several warnings (in edit summaries as well), including a final warning, the user won't stop. Any administrator who can step in? Thanks. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be completely ignoring cautions and continuing to upload pictures of living people that do not meet WP:NFC. I've given a preliminary 31 hour block, which hopefully will get his attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility/racism

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

Closing this. A Nobody is not going to be blocked and nothing else will come of this. ÷seresin 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Evening all.

We have here an editor, talking about the Article Rescue Squadron, referring to them as "you people".

We have here, another editor stating that this is "racist".

I don't know what the appropriate admin action is here (or if there is any), so it's all yours.   pablo_hablo. 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue for ANI and it doesn't appear to really be an issue for anything. If it keeps up, perhaps it's an issue for WP:WQA, but you don't need to take a bit of testy/insane dialogue all the way to ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your input.   pablo_hablo. 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's a violation of WP:NPA's "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more lol-inducing. Describing people who don't like the ARSes as "racist"? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what I thought. I didn't think there were stringent entry requirements.   pablo_hablo. 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been somewhat of a urination contest going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. I've been fussed at for making an off-hand joke well away from the main area of battle, and I've also told two of the main combatants, User:A Nobody (who apparently has a history of not being to civil) and User talk:Ryan4314 (much more civil) to take their dispute elsewhere. User:A Nobody has been particularly troublesome, and erases any comments on his user page with which he disagrees. I understand he's been the subject of an RFC before. I'm not sure this has risen to the level of an ANI yet, but some wiser heads might want to keep an eye on A Nobody and the AfD discussion, just to make sure things don't get out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody — Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I see this in Tropic Thunder?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

--Father Goose (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; I'm gonna have to see that movie ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can some admin please ban me?

Resolved

 – User is getting the help they need, thanks to some clever javascript. –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please ban me for 2 months? I need to get off Wikipedia, but it has become some sort of an addiction :( I'd appreciate a quick response, thank you. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLOCKME, we can't do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't block people on request. Try Wikibreak Enforcer. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:52, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

"typically". You could if you wanted. And if enough of us started doing it, the guideline would of course be rewritten to better describe (rather than prescribe) our actions. –xeno^talk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, then. I can't really think of a reason to be against it yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:01, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I remember a similiar request a year or so back, I said no but another admin went ahead and did it for two weeks as they requested. A week later they requested an unblock saying they only meant one week, they were unblocked and it was pointed out that this is why we don't typically block on request. They didn't take it very well, thought they were being attacked, overreacted and now they're blocked indef, including a few sockpuppets.--Jac16888^Talk 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's basically because of the administrative overheard. To be clear, I'm not going to do it - but I've seen admins who have in the past and no one really batted an eyelash. –xeno^talk 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaa, crap. I'll try that, thanx. --JokerXtreme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I never thought much of that part of WP:BLOCKING, and as it says "typically", I usually do it on request (see users talk page). However, in this case, it seems that merely logging out has solved the problem. Tan | 39 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like they setup the wikibreak enforcer as suggested by Equazcion (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject here, the blocking tool is intended to prevent disruption to the project, not one's psyche. Using it to the latter effect just muddles things. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an unblock request is reasonable and done in good faith it may be approved. Why should a reasonable, good faith block request be declined?> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a simple way to avoid the scenario mentioned above where they try to back out of it later. Just give them the hardest possible block, no talk page+no email access=no unblock request. Done that way, I don't see any harm in it, although nobody would be required to fulfill such a request either. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow is deliberately baiting me

Resolved

 – HalfShadow warned and acknowledged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outright insults, [136], refactoring my comments [137][138], more snark [139].

Do something about this. I will tell you now, I will categorically not listen to 'just ignore it'--if I did the same things, I'd get blocked. You're admins, deal with the problem. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop reverting his posts while your at this?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because at no point did I attack him. The reverse is not true. Once again, Coldplay: I'm sure you contribute to articles, but your contributions elsewhere are largely marked by being wholly ill-informed about the issue. Please stop. → ROUX ₪ 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And again[140] when I dropped the required AN/I notice on his talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I don't want anymore trouble but the truth is, I've been watching this issue for a while now. Ever since (and even before) Malleus got blocked (again) I've been paying attention. I look down on those who drive away one of our best content creators on this whole site.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your fucking pardon? Malleus shows up to do nothing but attack and harass me (and then, indeed, does it again with zero repercussions apart from a wholly-ignorable warning), and I'm the one who drove him off? You have less than no clue of what you're talking about there, kid. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, you seem stressed...you might want to step back and take a 30 minute break or something. Just get away from the stress for a while, and you will feel better I'm sure. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, and I realise this may be a novel concept, how about you address the actual problem here? → ROUX ₪ 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin...but just step back and let them handle it...you're getting to stressed with this to keep control much longer it seems. Just go watch a thirty minute comedy on tv or something, and relax...you will feel better! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so [I] have less than no clue of what [I'm] talking about there, kid? Give me a break. Your starting to act like a fool. Edit waring does'nt help your case either.[141].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Coldplay. Insulting me just like the person you inexplicably believe I drove away? Good job. Now, could we please return to the actual issue at hand, which is HalfShadow's unacceptable behaviour? → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a template. If it's fine for newbies who we should be nicer to, it's fine for regulars. And that is hardly the point.. I have in fact not attacked or baited HalfShadow. The reverse is not true, so yet again I must say: familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it. → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/facepalm Roux, you've only been back to editing, what, a couple of weeks and you've been to ANI how many times...? Just sayin' ... maybe there are people and venues you should avoid as if your life depended on it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By which you nicely show your ignorance of the situation and inability to read diffs. I had said nothing to HalfShadow. Not word one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. He showed up and started attacking and baiting me. Yet again, familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it.→ ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connotation and tone (literature), Roux. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't need to read diffs. The point is, maybe you should avoid contentious areas like WQA or ANI and stick to something a bit less stressful. Seriously. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious areas have nothing to do with this. People attacking me out of nowhere (and yes you do need to read the diffs, that's the whole point of providing them) is the problem. Do us all a favour and address the actual problem for a change. I know, that's not in the Admin Handbook, but try breaking the mold. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, what problem do you wish addressed? Shadow made a light hearted comment after a post where you yourself said you were an idiot. Why is your sarcasm at WQA OK but someone else's take on it is not OK? Then you go to their talk page and issue a warning about a so-called personal attack and they don't take it seriously. You could have posted again about how uncivil it is to change idiot-edits because the idiots furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand what happened [copyvio]. Instead you come back with a DTTR. What behaviour do you wish addressed here? Franamax (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because making a comment about oneself is one thing. Someone showing up to dig in a bit further--someone who has left insults on my talkpage prior to this incident--is a very different animal. Far from 'not taking it seriously', he continued with insults, and indeed completely rewrote what I had written. Or has the policy against rewriting comments made by others changed recently? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just my 2 cents due to numerous past observations here, per WP:POINT... if the complainant continues to behave per such manner, it is possible that he/she might end up being the one getting BLOCKED instead. Also, the complainant might wanna read up on WP:Gray Area first before carrying on with his/her hounding, as HS has chosen to disengage from an escalating situation and you should take the hint. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding? What? He showed up in a thread in which he was previously wholly uninvolved solely to hound and harass me. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Both of which he appears to lack one way or the other) This is going nowhere. Roux obviously has a grivence (I'll give him that) but he's going about it the wrong way. Ever tried actually asking them to stop? Instead of creating several ANI threads?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I did. But, y'know, you know all about this situation, so you should know that. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and your such a saint who's been wronged and now your out to get revenge, right? Like I told you before, two wrongs do not make a right.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous here, but [142] is way way inappropriate. Halfshadow had better refrain from that in the future. RxS (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And HalfShadow, whatever your beef with Roux is, stop now. Your only causeing disruption. Move on.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unblock review User talk:Bibleopedia

Is it just me or is this user being jerked around a bit? I don't see any username violation in their original unblock request, unless we are to believe that "Bible Crusader" means they are officially on God's own payroll and are here to promote the Bible... Their only edit outside of their talk page was to create a user page that did in fact promote a website. They were blocked for that. Fine, I can get behind that, but then they get a block notice saying their username is the only reason for the block, and now apparently any other name they might choose is not good enough because the first name promoted a website. Beeblebrox (talk)

I think I was justified in declining "Bible Crusader", not because they're on God's payroll but because (to me at least) it just screams out they're here to push an agenda--Jac16888^Talk 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really kinda weird. There are names that are way worse. This could easily lead to anyone w/ the name Mohammed, Jose, or Maria being disallowed... Go thru the names we have. "Headbomb" (terrorist?)... "Tide rolls" (pro Tsunami?)... "Hell in a Bucket" (Satanist?)...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jac, they really haven't even been given a chance to edit beyond his one page. Just give him a second chance, as there is no harm in trying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was a bit out of line there. Crusaders do, however, annoy me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm not stopping him. I didn't block him and I haven't declined his following unblock requests. I saw him requesting an unblock with a name I felt was inappropriate so I declined the request. Change his name to his latest request and unblock him--Jac16888^Talk 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've unblocked them and told them to choose either of their last two requested names as their new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket: copyright problems

I was doing my daily rounds at WP:SCV when I came across Robert B. McGinnis "by" Racepacket (talk · contribs). The article is a close paraphrase from [143], with two paragraphs almost copied verbatim (the ones beginning with "McGinnis's 1965 book" and "He founded"). Having a look at his talk page reveals a history of similar copyright problems spanning more than two years.

• Mary Margaret Whipple deleted twice as copyvio. I haven't checked the third creation.
• Sylvester Willard - [144] copied from [145]. The article remains a derivative work. (May be pd as the source sources something pd, but can't really tell.) Sent to WP:CP.
• Marguerite Ross Barnett, see [146]. Essentially, [147] from [148]
• Jacksonville Developmental Center, see [149]. Was sent to WP:CP and revised.
• William T. Miller see Talk:William T. Miller

At the very least, please revoke his autoreviewer permission. I've also requested a CCI (not opening it directly, would like feedback). MER-C 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. That article is a very close paraphrasing, any user who would do that shouldn't carry the autoreviewer flag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) None of the McGinnis article is verbatim from any source, and the facts from the different sources are arranged in a meaningful order. Marguerite Ross Barnett was based on a public domain resume that was distributed with a conference. I have reviewed the history of the Mary Margaret Whipple article and am not aware of it being "deleted twice as copyvio," because it is still there. I took a one semester course in copyright law, passed the US Patent and Trademark Office admission to practice exam, and am familiar with what constitutes infringement. Again, the facts vs literary express distinction can be tricky and subjective. Based on this, I have identified and tagged a number of copyright violations, including [150] [151] [152] Racepacket (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC):[reply]

• Sorry, but no - a quick check of the McGinnis article after your last edit against the apparent source shows two paragraphs that are substantially identical in each. Other paragraphs can be similarly traced to the other two sources. There does appear to be a significant problem. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mary Margaret Whipple was deleted twice as a copyvio. You created it first here: "01:43, 26 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (812 bytes) (start article)" Corensearchbot tagged it, you removed the copyright flag, and it was deleted by User:Butseriouslyfolks at 04:47, 26 September 2007. The next day, you created the article a second time: "21:50, 27 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (986 bytes) (stated article)". It was deleted by the same admin as a reposted copyvio the following day. The current version dates to later that same day. I have been evaluating some of your recent contributions. I have reverted your edits to Worcester State College; see Talk:Worcester State College for an example of copied text. I have found additional issues (not yet cleaned) in the article Salem State College (content you added here duplicates text at [153], [154] & [155])). Given that and the history above, there does seem to be need for further review at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. You may not have intentionally violated copyright, but your handling of previously published texts in these articles has not accorded with copyright policy and non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The CCI is open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket. I will notify the appropriate projects in case they are interested in assisting with evaluation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mardi Gras

As it's now the season this article and Mardi Gras in the United States have been getting quit a few ip vandals lately. Anyone willing to semi for a week or so to stop the IPs from having fun? We've been getting a few good Ip additions, but about 90 % have been vandalism and they are increasing by the day right now.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been an edit to that page in like eight hours, and only two edits yesterday total. If the level of vandalism increases, consider reporting to WP:RFPP, but I'm going to have to decline for now. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed I also linked Mardi Gras where 2 vandal edits were made 20 or 30 minutes ago which I just reverted before posting here the first time? Or that every hr or 2 all day we had a vandal or 2 show up? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected Mardi Gras for 1 week after verifying an elevated level of IP vandalism over the last couple of days. I note that similar protection was applied last year. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, load off my mind. Back to work on article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the preemptive protections. This is turning into a common modus around here, and there was no consensus for doing it in the first place, let alone doing it all the time. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be a concensus written up as policy, but there a valid reason for occasionally doing it, keeps those of us who would rather be doing something productive(aka adding to article space), from having to revert IP vandals constantly on short term targets like a holiday party in NOLA.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an entirely separate board specifically set up to handle these types of requests. In the future WP:RPP is the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, yes, but repeatedly, no. The discussion about protecting every single Super Bowl player was an excessive reaction, and it leads to the precedent of possibly preemptively protecting every article concerning the upcoming Olympics and all of the participating individuals. Woogee (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actions such as this are entirely inappropriate when there is no ongoing vandalism, nor any vandalism at all in the five days prior to the protection. The reason for the protection is false, as well. Woogee (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must've missed that discussion, I have no opinion on it. But after repeatedly reverting vandals for the last few days, with an ever increasing frequency, I felt it was appropriate to ask in this situation. Also, next time I will ask at WP:RPP, sorry, didn't realize there was a special place for this. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. There was never a consensus to violate the protection policy, but it was implemented anyway. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable IP sock puppetry, I'm involved in the article

This one's a bit complicated. I've been involved with Reargun (talk · contribs) in edits on David a while back, and Khirbet Qeiyafa more recently over an inscribed piece of pottery and an excavation and their implications for the historicity of the Bible. This is a live issue in real life and a disputed/contentious one, and I hope and think I've been trying to keep the articles NPOV and not coming out for one view or another. Reargun (in my opinion I emphasise) seems to have been edting to put emphasis on one pov (and also has some problems with English which hasn't helped his edits, so I've reverted or edited some for that reason also). A little while ago Reargun said on his talk page that he had a storker {sic) and was going to 'lose' me. He started editing Khirbet Qeiyafa with an obvious sock, BerelZ (talk · contribs). [156] I tagged the sock and told him [157] that if he wanted to use an alternate account he could but needed to tag it with an alternate account tag. Then similar edits were made by 216.209.86.141 (talk · contribs) and I took the sock acccount and the IP to SPI, where the Checkuser confirmed the sock account but declined to comment on the IP.

I blocked the sock account indefinitely and told Reargun, as you can see on the diff above, "OK, I've blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely after it was CU confirmed. Please don't create any more. And please don't edit logged out. I'm not blocking you -- I'm assuming good faith, see WP:AGF. Please don't prove me wrong.". What I didn't do is note my actions on the SPI case, and a clerk blocked Reargun for 2 weeks and then unblocked after seeing my note (I was duly chastised for not having placed my actions on the SPI case, and apologised).

Next came more edits by the IP, and at that point I asked the Checkuser about the situtation, and was told "Just because I refused to say whether an IP was related to a user does not mean that you are forbidden to take action if you think it is necessary." At that point I blocked the IP (this was last night). This morning when I woke up {my first night with over 5 hours of sleep for several days) I decided I was too involved and unblocked the IP. I then found that another IP was making the same edits, 99.246.2.8 (talk · contribs). A WHOIS shows that both of these IPs are from the Israeli Embassy in Ottawa.

Can anyone advise or help me deal with what I still think is IP sock puppetry? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a bit borderline. I think it was probably a good idea for you to reverse the block, in terms of being "involved" and all. Logged-out editing is normally not regarded as illegitimate in and of itself, as long as it's not done to circumvent WP:SOCK (i.e. simultaneous editing both with the IP and an account with deceptive purposes, or using logged out editing to deliberately prevent proper scrutiny). Technically, I see one edit by the second IP done while the first was blocked, which would be block evasion, but then again, since that block was lifted as somewhat questionable shortly later, I personally would be a bit reluctant to sanction them for that. In any case, I've semi-protected the article for a while, to encourage them to return to their proper account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GiacomoReturned, yet again

Sigh. Archiving the archive comments. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows, it's archived! Either remove the archive tags or just stop. Giano, you have what you want now, I do hope you are satisfied, now perhaps you can do your worst to that discussion page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do hush! For your own sake. GiacomoReturned 15:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

OK, I withdraw. As the once productive discussion on the proposed policy page has turned decidedly nasty (I really didn't cause that) I'm totally withdrawing from it. I think it could work, but I guess I just don't have enough time or energy to pursue it, especially when it's has been taken over by some people I have no real respect for and who would prefer it if half the contributors here were to stop editing. Very sad. Oh well, I'll find other areas to work on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I couldn't have done something more for you. Obviously I would have really liked to, but I believe an admin needs to be fair to everyone, an attitude that probably cost me election to ArbCom last year. Maybe I'll go and be arbitrary, cliquish and popular. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aham aren't you the man who does not think it incivil to call another editor a "cocksucker" [158]- when it comes to incivility you people don't know the meaning of the word.  Giano  15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have baited him now would you Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I frustrate Giano a great deal by not rising to his bait.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. Always baiting when you people are found to be in the wring isn't it?  Giano  15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin had a different view. Notably, I did considerably better in the ArbCom election than that admin, whose present contacts with ArbCom are--regrettable. I'm content. Got miles to go before I sleep, Giano, so I will leave you to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's not your fault. I really tried hard to get some good discussion going on that incivility block page, and it was doing well till Giano showed up. As he's seen fit to camp there, and nobody can do anything about it, then I'm just not going to bother - I'm handing the reigns over to someone else to see if they can sort this out. I have clinical depression, so I'm not going to spend precious energy battling with him. I know a lot people think I'm baiting him, but that's just not the case. I was genuinely horrified at his blocking attack page, so I submitted it to MFD. If some thought the timing iffy, oh well. I did what I thought right. On the incivility block talk page I did make a suggestion that he should just go away from it, as he wasn't contributing anything and I still maintain this. I have to say that I'm just plain amazed that Giano is able to get away with the sheer audacity of calling others "priggish hypocrites", and make sexual jokes at their expense like he did on the talk page of that proposal. Frankly, I'm gobsmacked, and truly saddened by it. I've never met anyone so mean in all my time on Wikipedia, and that is definitely saying something! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

• This is achieving nothing. Go take a break, you can go back to arguing later--Jac16888^Talk 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if Giano changes the talk page, then will an admin do something about it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm de-archiving as I don't feel that this is resolved. I'm extremely concerned that Giano is going to derail the discussion and remove text from the talk page. I would like to know what can be done about this. And what of the edit war that resulted? He violated 3RR, is this not to be enforced? Surely this is disruptive? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I'm sorry for the drama, but Giano has basically decided that as he was insulted by some others that he was going to cause as much upset on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks as possible. As the discussion on how to start off the proposed text got so completely sidetracked, I moved it to its own thread (there was one suggestion which was to archive to stop the drama which Giano reverted several times). This is now being opposed, and Giano has stated that he is going to move it back after this was done almost 8 hours ago. He has also stated that he's not concerned about removing material due to this move, as he stated that "Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.". This is getting pretty disruptive, can I please have a review?

Also, he's currently attempting to bait me on my talk page. I'm not really interested in engaging with him directly, as I've stated a number of times, so I would appreciate someone telling him to desist from my talk page. Especially as he was quite willing to also do the same to me, I would have expected him to undertake the same behaviour he expects in others.

I would appreciate that this time the discussion not be archived until we can get a resolution, because this was done last time and the issues continue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tbsdy, I think where baiting on talk pages is concerned you are the expert. I am happy to take your page off my watchlist. There - done! However, you are becoming monotonous and dull. You cannot exclude people because they don't happen to agree with you. It is a great pity, but one I fear you will have to learn yo live with. You attempted to force through a policy, based on a deebate largely centred on me (about which no one thought to inform me). Now I share my views with you and that debate, you are unhappy. That realy can't be helped.  Giano  08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about your statement where you said you were prepared to lose material from the talk page? Can you confirm that this is the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Bu you are becoming over exited. I said it would be a pity [159] I am known to be Wikipedia's worst merger and mover - nothing more. If you or soemone else put my comments back into context it would be far safer, look how carefully you moved them in the first place. You are very clever at things like that - I am not.  Giano  08:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm feeling pretty calm, but thanks for asking. Your comments were not related to the previous discussion, and my move of them into their own thread actually still shows them in their full context. Any reasonable editor will be able to follow your concerns, which have nothing to do with starting off the policy text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not at all, read the debate, if you are able, you will see your friend, Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. I rather leave baiting to others more expert than me. I merely mention the episode to show the hypocrisy surrounding the blocking for undenialble and true incivility. Now I am truly done here. Good luck in your future Wikipedia career.  Giano  15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you moved comments on a wikipedia debate, without consultation of wisdom. You had no right to do that and were attempting to influence a debate that was not going the way you wanted it to. The page duscussed me at length, in my absence, and now you throw a mega-strop when I arrive and start to corect some of the conclusions drawn by slandering and defaming me. My name occurs 20 odd times before over a two week period before I edit it for the first time. Then when I do, you remove my edits to a corner out of context because they don't fit your view. You should be banned from the discussion for distortion.  Giano  08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. What happened here was that you started talking about something that was entirely irrelevant to the topic thread. Then FatherGoose set archived header and footer on this material, but you reverted it here, here, here and here, all because you want to continue the discussion. Now at least one editor commented and stated how confused they were about the discussion, mainly due to the poor use of indenting and the fact that the new discussion you forked has nothing to do with the original discussion. So to compromise, I moved your totally irrelevant comments into its own thread. I thought this was a pretty fair compromise, given that you were edit warring. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, I've tried to tell you this quite a few times now, but I had nothing to do with that conversation you are, justifiably, upset about. I'm not feeling "strops" (now that is an Australian word if ever I've heard one, have you ever visited?), all I'm really interested in is getting topics of conversation back on track again. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be using the incivility block talk page as a forum for your grievances - if you have an issue with the way that someone has treated you, try filing a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as this is a more appropriate avenue for this sort of thing. Certainly it's less disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Bu you really should disengage, your distortions in order to win your points are now becoming concerning. Anyone reading the dialogue as it was before vandalised by you could see a rationed arguement. You took exception to my metephor and idiom which you could not understand. That is now many people debate.You really have to learn to be a little more broad minded and tolerant. I hope you can acheive this. Now, I'm not coming back here to talk to you further because these threads here of yours are becoming disruptive in themselves. Adieu.  Giano  09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your right Giacomo, but you are mischaracterizing my actions. As I stated above, I'm not happy about the conversation where you were mentioned without being around, but I can't condone you disrupting the talk page. Evidently I'm not the only one, as Father Goose tried to archive the thread to stop the drama, GoodDay also tried to get an uninvolved admin involved and expressed a desire to collapse your part of the conversation, Doc Quintana has expressed some frustration as it's not easy to follow proceedings and obviously I would like it if you took your grievances elsewhere. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a situation here where at least four editors are not happy with the the thread that Giano forked and a compromise was attempted. However, he is now saying that he's prepared to disrupt the policy discussion by readding the material and continuing his grievances. Why is this not an admin matter? Yes, I know it looks like a squabble, but surely the four editors I've noted above should be at least considered in this whole thing? Giano is the only one who wants to continue the conversation, but surely this is not the place for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I think moving peoples comments at all (or archiving discussions, or using 'collapse' boxes etc.) is generally a bad idea - it gives (to me at least) the impression of a sort of unhelpful passive aggression that's just not very useful in actually moving forward and resolving discussions. A valid argument could be made, in my opinion, that it's not very 'civil' either (I get more annoyed by these things than by people saying nasty things about me (shock! it's true! not all see the beauty of this private muse!). On the other hand - I am aware of one groovy way to encourage folk to disengage and chill for a while ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I only use that for folks who have already expressed their opinion but have nothing more to add :-) In this situation, there has been a 3RR violation and a total derailment of several conversations all because one editor has been justifiably upset by the comments of some totally unrelated editors to the thread they were commenting on. I feel that something needs to be done here. Even if Giano is told not to readd the thread, that would be fine by me. But then, technically he should be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Note that this isn't the best course of action, but I think it shows a clear indication of disruptive behaviour. The function of ANI is for reports of problems with disruption, so archiving without a clear resolution is not helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nah... blocking's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons, I reckon, and I think you can be confident at this point that you've expressed your thoughts on the matter well - so the best next step is probably to disengage yourself, and allow others to take action (or ignore the whole thing, and drink tea, as admin.s are occassionaly wont to do!) - either ways it'll all come out in the wash... Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)heading offline now, so it really is the end of my correspondance ;-) - good to see both you chaps around here, btw - even if you are getting on each other's tits ;-)[reply]

Well, I have to disagree. I really need some reassurance that Giano will not try to restore the thread and disrupt existing threads. That is all I'm looking for here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why because it might have a chance of actually solving this? I just hope if I ever go off the deep end I'll be given 10¹² chances to turn it around too.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely amazed at how much patience people show to Giano. Even when he disrupts and is completely rude (says things like "priggish hypocrisy", etc.) nothing is done. In fact, if anyone dares to complain or ask for assistance, admins close down the thread? Why?!? We wouldn't let someone like Nothughthomas do this, why should we let Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea in the middle of a dispute with another user to nominate one of there userpages for deletion? User:Giano/The_spooky_"Curse_of_Giano" Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he is maintaining an attack page, sure. Why not? If you reported a vandal or a troll who maintained an attack page like this, what would you do about it? I mean, come on - even the people who are currently voting keep are basically saying that Giacomo should be banned for his incivility. Since when did we put up with this sort of mean spirited and hurtful behaviour? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea to let such a drama monger continue to have editing privileges here? The sheer volume of controversy over this user should tell anyone all that is really needed to be known. I'm just waiting for some of his supporters and the supporters of other long term drama mongers to make public the WP:CONTRIBFORPOLICYVIOLATION cheat sheet so us plebs can finally keep score.--Crossmr (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not much of an attack page, its a simple reference to some of the blocks that he feels a bit grieved about, it looks pretty harmless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, that's not the case here. He's basically saying that any admin who has the temerity to oppose him gets blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is actually going on here? This editor has clearly been a huge drama, and is completely rude in every way. Yes, we all know of his brilliance in terms of architecture, but if he was abducted by aliens tomorrow and were to never return, would Wikipedia survive? Well, yes, it would. So why are people so concerned about upsetting him, when he is clearly not worried about doing this to others? Can anyone explain this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, and like all great users who show up here on what seems like a weekly basis, I always support showing them the door indefinitely.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, any time someone reports Giano for civility, it results in a huge, week-long dramafest that never gets anything resolved, but creates a lot of bad faith and (usually) wheel-warring over blocks. Giano has enough friends and enemies that nothing ever gets consensus, so we just keep going round and round. Outside of him doing something bad enough for ArbCom to step in, which he seems smart enough to avoid, there's no way he's going to be blocked. So, at this point, people just shrug and go about their business, rather than step into the mire of drama that will ensue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fine, but I'm not having him hold Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks to ransom. He'll not be moving that thread. If no admin has the guts to step in to stop it, then I guess I'll need to ensure it doesn't happen myself. I'm not going to have such an important policy proposal derailed by one editor, no matter how brilliant at architectural articles he may be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the thread with great hope, because I am no friend of Giano's and would not mourn overmuch at his wikideparture. Unhappily, I see nothing blockworthy or otherwise deserving of administrator intervention. Giano tends to crowd the edge, but he wasn't even close this time. Ah well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the violation of 3RR? He's already shown he's willing to get into an edit war, and I fear he will do this to readd the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely any 3RR violation is stale. However, if you want to make an issue of it, go ahead and post the diffs. I am about to leave for the day so won't be dealing with it, but perhaps you can find someone willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, forget about it. I'm not going to let him return that thread against general consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OH dear, I thought this thread was closed before I went off to spend a morning in the real world, yet I come back not to harmony, but more strange behaviour by TBSDY (his AFDing a humourous user page - just ignore it). Now, would someone please restore my comments back into context as they were before TBSDY removed them. I tried last night, but then realised it was probably beyond my limited merging capabilities, whatever, I am prepared to have a go if no one more capable is prepared to try - please just don't all shout "Giano - you have lost something important" because it won't be deliberate - I assure you.  Giano  14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've already established that this isn't to be done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TSBDY, I am not going to tit-for-tat with you here any longer, we shall just see what happens in the next hour or so. I am too busy at present to try it myself as it wil requite all my powers of concentration. Hopefully, some clever person will try it for me. Now please don't reply, you are becoming tedious and I won't either.  Giano  14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't restore that thread to where it was before. You are honestly being disruptive to the policy page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Distruptive editing by User:Stemonitis

Administrator User:Stemonitis is doing long term (at least since 2007(!)) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive". He is adding for very long time a space (non-breaking space) before ref tag in very large number of articles. Although discussed his "proposal" 3 years ago, it was not implemented into guideline. This is exact example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He inhibit standardization of articles. Standardization and proper way of such editing is described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. He did not stopped this behavior although he was informed about it at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references and at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag. Administrators "are expected to observe a high standard of conduct". His restive behavior is against the guidelines and spirit of wikipedia. I appeal to other wikipedians to solve this situation in effective way in the same way as vandalism is solved. --Snek01 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is nowhere near needing admin action. As people at the Content noticeboard said, discuss it there but you're escalating this beyond proportion. And, I might add, going to WP:PLAXICO yourself if you push too hard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third place I've seen this. Snek01, you might get better results if you confine yourself to the one page and tone down some of your remarks. This is not a major issue and Stemonitis is doing no long term damage to Wikipedia. And in now way does this involve any use of his administrative powers so stop bringing that up. something lame from CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is major issue. Stemonitis is continuing this every day including this day. All infomation I have written above is correct. When administrator does not accept policies and rules guidelines, then is is very alarming and it could devastate moral of wikipedians. When s single user is blocked for three reverts, then administrator Stemonitis can not be blocked for thousands of intentionally made errors? --Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which "policy or rule" he is not "accepting". Tan | 39 14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For details see Content noticeboard. --Snek01 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third are behavioral guidelines, the second is a style guideline. I'd like to point out that there is no "policy or rule" being violated. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected to "guidelines" and these guidelines are violated. "Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point," is included in fundamental principles called Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Snek01 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about this that's a WP:POINT violation. User:Stemonitis is making what appears to be good-faith changes, which you happen to disagree with. Seriously, you need to go back to discussion with him, rather than seeking to punish him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elize du Toit

Please see File:Elize du Toit at the BAFTA's.jpg The picture came from Flikr and states (and Consequently so too does the wiki article) that it was taken at the 62nd Baftas. I was suspicious because I recognised her "costume" from Material Girl - Episode 1. The "additional information" attached to the file shows the picture was taken in April 2009, not at the Baftas in Feb 2009. I do not know how best to stop this misinformation being promulgated. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says it was uploaded in April, not taken. Original Flikr also says it was from BAFTAS. Is there evidence it wasn't???? Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]