I'm not in favor of NPA blocks, but I have recently come down in believing in blocking for fighting words, and I think a comment like that was designed to be a blow landed in a fight (or a sucker punch). Geogre 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Geogre; I normally do not block for NPA, but this is beyond the pale. Support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems awash with some pretty forthright comment on Talk Pages, a great deal of it, it appears to me, offensive rudeness by the style of remarks. However I am not sure this incident (whether seen as humorous or otherwise) falls into this category and I think instead of editors jumping on the "personal attack" bandwagon, there should be a commonsense assessment as to what is actually a fair comment or remark and an actual personal attack. I think he could at least have had the courtesey of a warning. David Lauder 08:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have any association with anyone involved, but I can't see how you fail to recognize it as both disgustingly incivil and a peronal attack. And viewing it as "fair comment"? This is worrying and puzzling. DrumCarton 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that any comments made on any talk page that is classified as a verbal attack should be taken very seriously by the Wikipedia administrators. For a comment that poses a concern to the safety of the user that the attack is intended to shall be kept and, depending on the severity of the comment (e.g. threats), law enforcement shall be notified of this incident. I think that certain precautions need to be made to end these kind of attacks. More strict punishments need to be made in regards to verbal attacks such as doing away with the warnings and such for attacking and just, immediately, block the user. I, in my own opinion, find the attacks to be the worst violation at Wikipedia! Redsox04 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER (number 6) after several warnings have been left at his talk page. He continues to do it to other articles. He's done this to the following articles/templates:

1. 2007 Indianapolis 500, which he made [at least] 108 edits to today
   
2. 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship
   
3. 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2007 NBA Playoffs
   
4. 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season
   
5. 2006-07 Detroit Red Wings season
   
6. 2007 New York Yankees season
   
7. Around the Horn
   
8. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final
   
9. {{2007 New York Yankees season game log}}
   

And others. He's been warned every time, yet he ignores these warnings and continues to do these edits. --Ksy92003 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let him know about what he's doing in a civil manner. Screaming at someone about the rules doesn't help matters. Editing what's going on during a match is going overboard though.--Wizardman 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll keep an eye on all those pages. If he continues doing those kind of updates, I'll protect said pages for a short time. Technically that's not allowed based on the protection policy, but I think that's a case where I could invoke WP:IAR.--Wizardman 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues, why would page protection be a better avenue than a block? IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, also. Page protection wouldn't be that great of a path, as it would also prohibit me from editing those same pages. I'm not asking for a block, but some action should be taken if Soxrock continues this. And then perhaps a block would be necessary.

Do you HAVE to be an admin to block another user? If not, could somebody tell me how in case I need to know? I'm not gonna block this user, I'm just wondering for knowledge's sake. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only admins can block editors. You can report vandals at WP:AIV to request blocks. IrishGuy ^talk 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... thanks. I thought so. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes from Soxrock on other people's talk pages regarding the instant updating which might be helpful to resolving this: Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

2007 Indianapolis 500, updating driver positions every lap

2007 Indianapolis 500 and the race being delayed, Soxrock added stuff "ASSUMING" the race would be declared over before any announcement was made.

Hopefully this well help resolve this. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Yeah, that's going too far. Why update it "because it keeps changing" when you can just wait until it's over to update it? I'll see if he responds to me, if not I'll keep an eye on him and take admin action if necessary.--Wizardman 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I, and other users, have been wondering for a while now. I'll leave it to you, Wizardman (that's such an awesome name). Thanks. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add, for the last quote, that the 2007 Indianapolis 500 continued after the rain delay. It's currently going on right now. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue revolves around sporting events, why not block this person for the rough length of time remaining in the game/race/whatever? I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs, but Ice hockey for example plays three 20 minute periods. If the game really were that long I'd recommend a block of an hour. If he/she was reporting the Tour de France the block could be first a day and if more reporting occurs then the block could become two days etc. Anynobody 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound reasonable. While I agree that would prevent the user from updating the scores, I'm not so sure that would solve the problem. First of all, sporting events don't have a set time frame; they may be 2 hours long or 4 hours long. Soccer is the only sport that comes close, as they play 2 45-minute halves of running clock. But there's still overtime and golden goal penalty kicks and other reasons the game might run longer. And besides, a running block like that isn't reasonable. If the user would get blocked, the block would have to be for a set time; we can't adjust the length of the block simply because of what sporting event's article they are editing. Do you get my point? For example, if they are editing a baseball game, that might be 3 hours long. However, a soccer game is less than 2 hours long. Despite the different lengths of games, it is, afterall, the same infraction, the same violation. Therefore, the punishment should be the same no matter how they do it. Do you understand, Anynobody? --Ksy92003 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another quote:

2007 Indianapolis 500

Soxrock appears to be a user who thinks that they can overrule an official Wikipedia policy. He refuses to abide by those rules, despite numerous warnings. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point Ksy92003 (talk), and indeed setting a block for events which don't have a set end time could be tricky (which is why I mentioned I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs....)

What other options are there though? If he/she keeps ignoring warnings sooner or later they will be blocked. Instead of adding a 24 or 48 hour block right away, a four or six hour block might get the message across without being unduly harsh. I realize this editor is doing something they aren't supposed to, but it's not quite as bad as making legal threats, blanking pages, or edit warring. If they go right back to these types of updates then the longer block becomes more appropriate. Anynobody 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock hasn’t performed any actions like that since the last time he was warned. He did, however, once update a basketball score before the game ended. Wizardman was alerted by me and he promptly warned him. Since then, however, he hasn’t done anything else wrong. But I have been monitoring all his edits… he hasn’t done anything yet. If this discussion is removed before he makes another edit like that, I will not hesitate to bring it back up to discussion if he does, indeed, update another sporting event’s score before the game ends. But in the past 24 hours, he hasn’t been a problem. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the editor got the message. You would be right to bring this up again if they do go back to updating, at the very least this does count as a warning. Anynobody 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not gonna worry about it anymore for the time being. But should he do it again, then I'll bring it up to Wizardman. But for now, everything is all good. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else is also looking to make a buck off of Wikipedia. See here and my response here. His response was, shall we say, less than mature.

This earlier edit to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. If he's so unhappy with not making any money here, perhaps someone can assist him in moving on to where he'd be happier? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a weirdo. Is there any reason to have that link around? Could we blacklist it? Grandmasterka 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I like how you refuted his points one by one, as he apparently asked you to, and then he couldn't respond with more than arm-flailing and childish attacks. Good work. Grandmasterka 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe a note at the spam blacklist page -- which I'll have to hunt around for, first -- is in order. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think either Centiare or Gregory Kohs should have an article, given the notability afforded by the Washington Post and others. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very slender reed of a single -- or even more than one -- newspaper mention is nothing to hang an actual article on, whatever grasping at straws Kohs or his helpers engage in. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, A.B., I personally know someone (& who has attended all of the Wikimanias so far) who has been doing exactly what Kohs wants to make a killing from -- but the Wikipedia article on his company was placed on WP:AfD. His Wiki is also one of the ten top Wiki sites according to this person, too. So I'd be surprised if Kohs is the subject of an article in Wikipedia soon. -- llywrch 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is just another sucker taken in by Kohs, who is very charming and persuasive when he wants to be. Kohs' project looks to be dead in the water, despite his undoubted SEO skills, so I can see why he is desperate for links from Wikipedia. He can get lost. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>I know several people who have been mentioned in newspapers and been on TV, can I make articles about them?</sarcasm> This guy's just trolling; I think a short block would be good, and if he keeps on going, indefblock. (Revert, block, ignore trolls.) · AndonicO ^Talk 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to Meta, but Kohs has popped up to dispute my nomination and the admin there doesn't seem to really understand the history or be convinced by the evidence of linkspamming. Some more opinions there would be helpful. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, despite yet another warning, User:Andman8 still figures spamming is OK. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing. --Calton | Talk 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just see my block log [9] and found that some weeks ago I was blocked permanently (without giving any reason!) and then was unblocked in the same minute, without any note on my talk page. why?--Pejman47 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin's account was compromised and used to block several people. See User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 13#Desysopped and blocked. Phony Saint 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh!, thanks for your clarification. --Pejman47 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public service announcement: To avoid this happening to you, make sure you have a strong, long password. —Crazytales ^o.o 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Goguryeo is under intense dispute and discussion. Several editors on both sides have been being extremely incivil to others.

However, I feel that User:JakeLM and User:Naus have been the most discourteous to others and I am requesting a final warning or a block. I have already warned them, but they do not seem to heed.

• JakeLM has called the talk page "a giant circle jerk for Korean ethnocentrists" [10]

• JakeLM has grouped editors of his opposing party and accused them of preventing good faith edits and has also called Good friend100 and Cydevil38 as "trolls", something that I find to be very rude. [11]

• Naus has called the article "ultranationalist Korean crap" [12]

I feel that these editors have not made the situation any better at the discussion page of Goguryeo and I think they should calm down a bit before edit warring or more incivility from both sides erupt. Good friend100 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good friend100 describes the most recent developments at the Goguryeo article, but I wonder why the user posted this notice since mediation is pending? The situation there is very tense indeed. However, with respect Good friend100 describes only several of the troublemakers. There are many more miscreants and highly disruptive trolls lurking about. Ultra-nationalism is a crippling problem on both sides. Nevertheless, I concur with Good friend100 that User:JakeLM's behaviour has been trollish, to say the least. Respectfully, the User:JakeLM has deposited a taboo curse-word on the talk page of an Anonymous IP which has not been reverted [13] and has recently left a scary, vicious, and completely over-the-top 'message' at Talk:Goguryeo that cannot possibly be viewed as helpful in the slightest. Mumun 無文 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jake seems to have gone too far, especially with that comment on the IP. On the other hand, tensions are indeed high and Good friend100, you yourself should be careful of civility. Responding to the message you mentioned here with [14] is not the best way to encourage anyone to calm editing. Getting too worked up about it is probably what made you get blocked for four days out of the last seven. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but somehow everyone needs to calm down. —LactoseTI^T 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried to explain to Johnsome that this edit isn't helpful, both in my edit summaries reverting it, and at his talk page [15]. His reply was far less than civil. I don't want to get into a 3RR with him, but his edit really does make a long, run-on sentence. He's got no interest in discussion. Can someone else go help him learn about Wikipedia? thanks. ThuranX 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the talk page, and get some input. That's the correct place to discuss. You can bring him around. --Haemo 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't, actually. And further, after this, I'm not interested in trying any further. ThuranX 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per this, I think any further efforts by myself are pointless. Admin please? ThuranX 02:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR vio. Migh still need to hear why he was blocked. ThuranX 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has an extensive history of vandalism and edit warring, first in List of best-selling video games and most recently in Insane Clown Posse. User has made a habit of "correcting" already well-sourced material, and has displayed hostility when edits are restored to their sourced versions. User has been warned against 3RR violation and edit warring. Though user is not currently in violation of 3RR (edits are more than 24hrs apart) the user has persisted in altering data that has been accurately sourced in the database of RIAA album certifications even after having been warned.[16][17][18]--Rosicrucian 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; this user is being disruptive on Insane Clown Posse. - Merzbow 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User now been issued level 2 and level 3 warnings for introducing incorrect information into the article, with the edit pattern continuing.--Rosicrucian 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, admittedly belatedly, I've restarted discussion on the article's talkpage in hopes of keeping this civil. We've discussed this on the talkpage before, but that was prior to this user actively editing on the article. We'll see if that works out, I guess.--Rosicrucian 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Platanogenius [20], as well as his IP address User:70.177.181.129 has been warned on many occasions and placed on notice that he will be blocked for vandalism and extreme POV.[21]. User:Platanogenius has already been blocked in the past and continues to express and use extreme POV and abusive statements. [22] User:Platanogenius and his IP address, User:70.177.181.129, has taken a personal interest in the article with statements like:

• I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but I do find the demographic article to be offensive to Cibaeño(Northern) Dominicans. We know who we are, we know our country." [23]

He has also gone about with multiple personal attacks with:

• "YOUR CONCEPT OR RACE IS LUDRICOUS..To ip 64.131, you are trying to impose " one-drop rule myth", hyperdecent and other racist thrash from the legacy of Jim Crow into a country like DR. Ernesto Sagas is a Dominican professor at CUNY,and not even him accepts that thrash...I'm not here to discuss the " screwed up concept of race" in other countries, but the reality of DR." [24]
• "DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT FARRAKHANISTIC MORON Why do you argue with that Farrakhan?? Ignore that moron, he doesn't know any better....This idiot doesn't know jack about our history...I'm Dominican, nobody has ever called me Black, even in the redneck deep south, ..Anyways, ignore these idiots,look how he is bad-mouthing white people. white people have done lots of evil, true, but this idiot wouldn't even be talking garbage thru this computer if it wasn't for this invention from the white man in the first place. That's just to tell you about his pea-sized brain. Some people's intellectual levels, in any race or ethnicity, is just Jurassic, just stay away from debating things like politics, religion or race with Neantherthals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platanogenius (talk • contribs) 01:55, May 25, 2007 (UTC)" [25]
• YOUR INTELLECTUAL LEVEL NEEDS TO GROW. Hey Einstein, when did I say anything anti-africanist here?? ... blaha blah and all the non-sense So I am the anti-black, racist,denier??? ...You think that you where going to deal with an ignoramus, but when it comes to history, you are kindergarten compared to me. You say " society" says that such words are offensive? wow, impresive answer. ..The article will be changed.Platanogenius 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius [26]
• UNBELIEVABLE, TALKING TO A CHILD... Anyways,the hijack of Wikipedia's English language Dominican Republic Article by radical afrocentric-onedroppist will be over soon.Platanogenius 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius. [27]
• WHY THE HAITIAN IS GETTING AWAY WITH THIS? Fellow Dominicans, this biased, prejudiced and reactionary Haitian has hijacked this article. Any edit that we put, whether it has sources that are better than the sources that he presents, he deletes. Is this guy a moderator here that is abusing authority here?The word is spreading thru out the prominent Dominican websites on the internet, " a tomar cartas en el asunto".70.177.181.129 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius. [28],
• "or make DR look like Haiti or Ghana,Congo, etc....70.177.181.129 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius." [29],
• "ABUSE I'm tired and irritared of your abuses and narrow-mindness. Besides, I've said that " mixed European and African people" can be a suitable replacement for " Mulatto". So what the hell is your problem?? You are very disrespecful, this is clearly a bias. - written by 70.177.181.129 (Talk) [65]",[30].

It is at this point that a request for a possible permenant block be implemented, the smallest being a weeklong block, possible RFC, and checkuser for User:Platanogenius and User:70.177.181.129 be implemented. YoSoyGuapo 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the Checkuser part yourself, there are instructions there. Bringing that back here would give Admins more info to use in making a judgement about his actions. ThuranX 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the IP in question signs its posts as "platanogenius", I think this would be a foregone conclusion. --Haemo 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser filed: [31] YoSoyGuapo 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) checkuser was declined YoSoyGuapo 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably note that it was declined because it was "obvious" that the user was the same as the IP - as we both said. --Haemo 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Just had to make sure. What can be done about this user? YoSoyGuapo 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an admin, and since none of them appears to want to take any interest in your case, I would just start adding "No Personal Attacks" templates to his board when he makes attacks, try to get him to stop (which, I imagine, will fail rather quickly), and then take it to either a the Admin intervention, Request for comment or the Community Sanction Noticeboard. You've put up with a lot, but I think you're just going to have to stick it out until the process runs its course. --Haemo 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.177.181.129 has gone forth with calling others derogatory and slang terms including the word "cocola" which is feminine for "cocolo" which can equate to nigger. [32]. YoSoyGuapo 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, earlier tonight I placed a 24-hour block on Geni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page (see [33], [34], and [35], history). While Geni did not go over 3, I felt that a block would be necessary in order to hinder further edit warring. Supposedly the story is that s/he is reverting something Jimbo put in, and while discussion is taking place, edit warring is as well. Needless to say she's probably not the only one involved, but perhaps the most chronic. I've no problem dropping the block, but I thought I'd drop a note here (as I should have done earlier) to see what you guys think. What do you guys think? -Pilotguy hold short 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, you can still be blocked even without 3RR - it certainly doesn't help his cause reverting Jimbo. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Jimbo is fairly stupid, regardless of reasons. Block fully warranted here. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world should it matter whom one reverts? It is well settled (see, e.g., the What is Jimbo's role? mailing list thread) that Jimbo, whatever may be his considerable merits, is to be accorded no special reverence when he acts qua editor (or, really, in any capacity except to the extent he acts at the direction of the Board), and that, whilst he may be better situated than some to adjudge where a consensus lies (he has been here, of course, as long as anyone and surely devotes more time to the Foundation than do most), he should not be understood as enjoying some special community-conferred capability in the latter regard. It may well be that Geni's behavior was untoward and that a block was necessary here to prevent further disruption (I can't say that I've a firm opinion on that issue, although Brad appears to have things quite right), but any decisions should surely be made irrespective of the identities of those with whom Geni may have revert-warred (we are, after all, a collaborative project upon the success of which depends in part our concentrating on contributions rather than on contributors). Joe 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Personally I think Geni's editing here was a little more stubborn than necessary, but I believe that an admonition and 3RR warning would probably have been sufficient in this case, reserving a block in case there were further problems. I also suggest that if you were going to block, a little more detailed explanation at the time of the block would have helped, as you cited a 3RR violation as the block reason rather than a more generalized reason of edit-warring or disruption. I would commute this block to time served with a reminder that the editor is at the revert limit and should stick to the talkpage for awhile. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that if it was a user that didn't know what they were doing, but Geni quite clearly does, and quite clearly understands what a revert war is. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block. When I first saw Jimbo's edit, I had the thought "I bet Geni will turn up and start reverting," and sure enough. His wading in with this kind of POINTy behavior is too predictable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with the block and would implore Pilotguy to unblock Geni. I don't believe the issue is with removing content added by Mr. Wales, but with the lack of a warning or a direct appeal to Geni by Pilotguy before blocking him (especially as the citation of 3RR was a bit off, as Geni didn't actually violate it). Had Pilotguy approached Geni, I feel that this situation would have been resolved much easier, as both fellows are trusted, devoted Wikipedians who, in my experience, are easy to talk to and engage in discussion. I believe Pilotguy simply made a small error in neglecting to approach Geni first, and this can easily be rectified by an unblock and a discussion. Also, it should be noted that Geni wasn't edit warring with Mr. Wales or anything (history clearly shows this of course, but it's worth mentioning I think). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a block may have been a little too far. It's true that his unilateral reversion of Jimbo's text was pretty obstinate, but nevertheless they were simply being bold, and it probably should've been handled like any other edit war instead of escalating it right to a block. Krimpet (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On looking at the issues again, although I still fully support the block, I agree that commuting it to tie served would be a less punitive measure now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this block. Geni was attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page (the right thing to do). If someone tries to game the system, by all means, block them, but blocking an established user who has three and only three reverts to this page and no other edits in months just doesn't make sense. If blocks are to be preventative, I don't see how this qualifies. I seriously doubt Geni would break 3RR by reverting a 4th time, so there is nothing to prevent. --BigDT 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR. Geni knows 3RR isn't a license to game the system. Support the block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other rational responce is there to blunt force reverting that ignores talk page comments?Geni 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page comments weren't helpful; they are rarely helpful, to be honest. You seem to thrive on acting like someone's annoying little brother. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you show them to be internaly inconsitant, based on a logical fallacy or conflicting with what we can discover about the world (assumeing an objective shared reality)?Geni 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, that comment is virtually meaningless. Please don't make me regret that I supported unblocking. I suggest we archive this thread and that you go edit an unrelated page. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short recap of the principles of logical debate. Hardly meaningless if that is what we are meant to be doing.Geni 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was meaningless in context in the sense of having little continuity with or relationship to the discussion that preceded it. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, there is, at any rate, no consensus for a block, and I've removed it. Which is not to say that the conduct was necessarily justified. --Michael Snow 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity, because the behavior clearly isn't regretted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We generally block based on conduct, not motivation, and for very good reason. --Michael Snow 02:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's understood that "not bad enough to warrant a block based upon input from a closely divided group of administrators" is very different from "endorsement of the editor's behavior." Geni, I was the first to question the block—but please don't do this again. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR" - No, it doesn't. Have you even read the 3RR page? There needs to be a whole lot less blocks by admins making up stuff off the top of their heads and a lot more trying to act like reasonable adults. DreamGuy 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the bit which states "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period", as I stated on Geni's talk page. I assure you I am quite familiar with 3RR. This was gaming the system. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up Jimbo's wording in what should be an uncontroversial manner, for clarity and to match the style of the other sections. I think the principle is a good one (though Jeff might not), though we obviously have disagreements over its application. I haven't read through the recent discussion at talk so I don't know what to make of Geni's reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I would have blocked Geni... blocking long time contributors doesn't often give exactly the desired results, but I don't see Geni's contributions in the WP:NOT discussion at the time as particularly helpful. In fact I'd go so far as to characterise them as obstructionist with a dash of ruleslawyerishness. (that's perhaps trying to say what Slim said but perhaps in a slightly(?) nicer way) Jimbo's change is one that I think the vast majority of the community (as well as the wider world out there) really wants. I'd advise Geni and others opposed to this change to step back, think about things deeply, and then come back with a more constructive approach than reverting first and then discussing in a way that isn't really open to taking the consensus view on board. Better to accept that WP needs to be ethical first and sensationalist not at all, and then work to craft policy statements to reflect that thinking, than to be obstructionist. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Such blocks give the impression that disagreeing with Jimbo gets you blocked. Some editors already have the idea that disagreeing with an admin gets you blocked, and we shouldn't be reinforcing that misconception. In other words, while revert warring is clearly a bad thing, we shouldn't treat the case differently just because the text being warred over was written by Jimbo. >Radiant< 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to take the rule lawyery approach I would just try to claim that the same standards as were required for Wikipedia:Attribution should be followed in this case. But given that policy does need to be changed from time to time that is not a good idea. No there are flaws in the policy. You can try and fix them now or when they start causeing problems which experence suggests is generaly way to late.Geni 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'll be sure to warn/conference beforehand from now on. -Pilotguy hold short 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been deleted three times so far and recreated three times by User:Ned Scott.

User reverted the MfD closure by an admin and went ahead and recreated the page.

I find this to be disruptive.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The MFD was incorrectly closed, that is all. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Doc glasgow's closure was based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've a problem with how the MfD was closed, please make a request for review at WP:DRV. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Doesn't it make more sense to just keep it open, rather than opening a DRV, which will naturally result in "inappropriate early closure" and another MfD? What does that accomplish? —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What misunderstanding was that? User pages can be speedied on demand. Put a note in the deletion log with the user's new name if it's that big of a deal. --BigDT 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#U1 points to Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for details on how to handle such situations. There it says "...If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page...." -- Ned Scott 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "disruptive behavior" do you want to retain? It's a redirect. If it's that big of a deal to everyone, what about using protected titles? We can make User:White Cat/New identity, protect it, and transclude the old page. That way, it will be a redlink, but anyone going there will get a message telling them where to find his new identity. --BigDT 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, but a redirect is much simpler—this is the purpose of redirects, and presumably for whatever unknown reason Cool Cat doesn't want a redirect, he wouldn't want the message. —Centrx→talk • 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott has overridden the deletion of the page by 4 admins (2 speedy 2 MfD close) so far. -- Cat ^chi? 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not make sense to include days-old actions prior to the MfD that were already disposed. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very relevant. It shows the fascination of Ned Scott with my former userpage I want to get deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, Cat, but I've done nothing wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott, I count 4 reverts on the user page itself and 3 on the MFD. I strongly suggest you not revert either again. --BigDT 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably one of the least "process wonky" people you'll see on Wikipedia, and I can understand the desire to be bold, however I do think that we should extend respect to our colleagues by not arbitrarily reverting *fD decisions simply because we don't like the outcome. Mr. Scott has been edit warring on this matter and is close to violating our three-revert policy, and while I tried to re-instate the original decision, I don't feel as though my further participation in this matter will help resolve things. Cheers all gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel he has already violated 3rr by repetitively restoring the page 3 times and also revert waring over the speedy deletion tag. -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't condone unilateral reversals of other sysops' closures, but it's difficult to fault Ned for undoing one that was based entirely on a verifiably incorrect premise. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. —David Levy 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to hear why it was an incorrect premise. Unless that redirect somehow is evidence of bad behavior, I don't see any reason in policy to deny the request. --BigDT 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the part where other editors might express a reason to keep the redirect? I did just quote that to you.. Even without that, we have lots of bad behavior if you think that is the only reason for keeping the redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misread the quoted text, BigDT. A history of disruptive behavior is a reason for the speedy deletion request to be denied. If it's fulfilled, "others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." (emphasis mine)

I don't, however, know what gave you the idea that Cool Cat has no history of bad behavior. Perhaps you were misled by the fact that his block log wasn't transferred to his new username (another reason why it's important to inform users of the connection). —David Levy 06:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am a disruptive user, I should be blocked indefinitely. I request that I be blocked indefinitely if I am a threat to wikipedia. Take it to arbcom or community sanctionboard.

That policy was intended for pages with {{Sockpuppet}} and etc on them. My block log is available with or without the redirect on my userpage which I provide as a courtesy and I am neither expected or required to do so. The redirect neither generates a link to my block log nor is it in any way informative. The speedy deletion request was granted but was overturned by Ned Scott contradicting two administrators via "recreating" the page and two other administrators by reverting the MfD 3 times and recreating the page once.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 4 admin actions so far by recreating the deleted page three times. You also revert warred on the speedy deletion template. In a 24 hour period how many times have you restored the redirect? -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once this is over I'm certain this will warrant an inclusion on a certain BJAODN page *sigh* CharonX/talk 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson & User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection! Delete per User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!. Wikiewok 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc glasgow And User:Doc glasgow. Will you pursue him as well, Ned? Wikiewok 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the MfD debate, or did you simply insert your comments (similar to the above)?

Those are the editors' current usernames. Anyone who sees such a red link is fully capable of identifying the individual in question, viewing his contribution history, and contacting him with any concerns.

User:Cool Cat was not a user page, and no one has argued that Cool/White Cat is required to have one. It could be a redirect to his talk page or contribution history, or it could be a page explaining the name change. The point is that Cool/White Cat has provided no rationale (apart from "I want so") why some sort of connecting page shouldn't exist at that title. He's acknowledged that this inconveniences others and plainly stated that he doesn't care because it isn't his problem. —David Levy 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy-deleted User:Cool Cat and closed the MfD. This has become a ridiculous and disruptive waste of time. Newyorkbrad 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ironically, if ever the intent was to hide the connection between the old and the new username, that effort has now massively backfired. >Radiant< 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brad's actions. -- nae'blis 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to read your explanation of how an MfD debate conducted in precise accordance with the user page guideline was "ridiculous and disruptive." Personally, that's how I would describe the two out-of-process closures. —David Levy 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, that was not the intention. There is a very easy way to clear all my block logs and past history as people might already know. It is as easy as 4 mouse clicks and few keyboard buttons. To clear all block log/user history: first click on "sign out" (1) link, then click on "sign in/register" (2) link, then click "register username" (3) link. On the new menu type in your new identity and password. Then click "submit" (4) button. I feel the paranoia is unnecessary.

Users are neither expected nor required to provide any information on their past accounts or past blocks on their userpages. All that is available in the form of logs. Users should however be encouraged to provide such courtesy to create an environment of transparency. It's completely optional.

Unless you are willing to take it to the arbitration committee or any other form of dispute resolution do not complain about my past contribution as a pretense of your argument. I am not a criminal requiring special tagging. Do not treat me like one.

I am more than open about my history, more than anybody else if I may boldly claim. How many of the users have a link to the blocks they received on their userpage?

Many of the contributors in this very history has a block log although none have links on their userpage (I haven't actualy checked everybody). User:David Levy, your block log indicates you had been blocked twice. You were once blocked for 24hrs for trolling on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2 (although later pardoned as it was a "Totally unjustified block" (according to the block log)) and secondly you were blocked indefinitely for what I believe is the deletion of the main page (the log isn't perfectly clear). Your account was probably among the admin accounts compromised which you have recovered from (since you were unblocked). All this is "artificial/nominal controversy" irrelevant to your worth as an editor to the project. You (David Levy) are far too valuable to the project to be dismissed just over your block log. I'd like to point out that the logs are available for public view even if you do not put them on your userpage. I'd like to make it clear that this wasn't intended to be an attack to you, just a mean to self expression. I am sure practically everyone in this discussion had made at least one mistake or several others in the past some even leading to blocks.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be in disagreement with David Levy at the moment about the inane MfD under discussion here, but neither of the blocks in his block log had any substance. The first was reversed by general consensus almost instantaneously (and led in part to the blocking admin resigning his adminship), and the second was borne of confusion and also had nothing to do with David having done anything wrong. Let's not bring that up again, okay? Newyorkbrad 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the second block was performed by the hijacker of a sysop account (as part of a rampage) in response to my undeletion of the main page. (My account was not compromised.)

Thank you, Brad, for noting the irrelevance of these blocks.  :-) —David Levy 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I did try to say the same thing. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted brad's closure of the MFD. Brad and Doc might have their own views about this, but that's what the MFD itself is for. Policy does not back up a speedy closure/delete, and in fact says the opposite. It is completely inappropriate for these admins to have closed the MFD and deleted the redirect. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get some perspective. Trebor 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now User:BigDT has re-closed it and protected the MFD page. How the fuck is this acceptable? -- Ned Scott

Because it's an unimportant no-brainer. Take it to DRV if you want to prove a point, or else take a step back and think about what you're arguing over. Trebor 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is reverting 5 admins closing a deletion discussion acceptable Ned Scott? This kind of persistence is unheard of... Ned Scott please be civil. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't close the MFD. I reverted your un-closing of it. There is a message at the top of that page in big red letters asking you not to modify it. When that message is ignored repeatedly, protection is used to enforce the closing. This isn't anything novel. You may want to read Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. If the guy wants his user page deleted, who gives a frick? I'm the fifth admin to delete the page and you're the only person to re-create it ... take the hint and move on with life. --BigDT 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should take the hint and allow myself to be bullied off the issue? If five vandals vandalized an article, and I was the only one to restore it, should I take a hint then? Get off your high horse, because you are not in a position to force such a discussion closed. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or ... take the hint and stop recreating the page. The appropriate way to contest a deletion is at WP:DRV, not by recreating the page or reopening the deletion discussion. --BigDT 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As two other admins have also pointed out, taking it to DRV just wastes time and causes more disruption. If we see something was done wrong, we can simply FIX IT and move on. But no, you think it's better that we make a bigger deal out of this and waste more of our time. Thanks, BigDT, you really helped. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be bullied Ned Scott? It is my userpage. You are the one revert waring 5 admins + me. How is this NOT disruptive? -- Cat ^chi? 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Slow news day, I see. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROFL. Thanks, I needed that. ;) --BigDT 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's now on DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So... who's going to add this to WP:LAME? DrumCarton 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I nominate/volunteer you for the job. :) -- Cat ^chi? 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, will an uninvolved administrator please look at the history of Image:Charlie Keever.jpg. I am unsure what to do at this point, am tired of personal attacks and incivility, and am open to suggestions. (Note: I am leaving my computer for the next several hours as I would like to disengage, so I will be unable to answer questions.) Thank you, Iamunknown 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here - the copyright holder is the San Diego Union-Tribune, which is also the source for the image, as licensed. --Haemo 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the newspaper is the copyright holder of the photograph of the child? Did the newspaper create the photograph of the child? I don't think so. --Iamunknown 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because when newspapers run unattributed photographs, they claim they have the copyright to that image. --Haemo 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vendetta has taken place against Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet aka User:Kittybrewster by a handful (one hand) of detractors. They have systematically attacked articles he wrote or commenced in stub form; they then flagged up the article page on him for deletion. This failed. They then returned to the scene and regardless of the AfD's failure messed about with the article and have now deleted it under another heading, i.e: via the back door. Administrators need to reach a concensus on this type of appalling self-satisfied self-opinionated behaviour. David Lauder 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative hypothesis: Kittybrewster has been somewhat over-enthusiastic in documenting his family on Wikipedia, some editors have cast a more critical eye over these articles and decided that in some cases merger or removal may be appropriate. Since we had more articles on Arbuthnots than on Kenedys that may be a defensible position... Guy (Help!) 08:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is more to it than that. You just have to asess the endless diatribes made by his detractors. (The Kennedys? Are you serious?) David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • So what, there are plenty of notable Arbuthnotts. This is just a major case of "I don't like it". Catchpole 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious complaint. Please do not accuse me of being childish. David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I was commenting on JzG. Catchpole 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David: Yes, I am serious. Category:Arbuthnot family, Category:Kennedy family if you don't believe me. Actually since Kittybrewster's autobiography was merged there are now the same number of articles in both categories, 64. It does seem a bit rum, doesn't it, that we should have so many articles on a minor Scottish noble family one of whom just happens to be a Wikipedia editor? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kittybrewster's edits should not lead to an assault on his article by those who continually treat the British ascendency with disdain. There are many wider issues here. These editors, numerous are openly pro-Irish republicanism, cannot accept that the holding of a significant honour from the British Crown (a baronetcy) can make one inherently notable, they believe that becuase it is hereditary is is somehow irrelevant. This is obviously not the opinion of society as a whole. This anti-hereditary bias is clearly POV, which has no place on Wikipedia. --Counter-revolutionary 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe they permit their very personal and political views to spew into Wikipedia. That is not what encyclopaedias should be about. David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • ...[S]elf-satisfied self-opinionated behaviour...
  • Yes, that behaviour may be a problem but we're still trying to figure out which editors are to blame. There'ss a conflict between editors who have differing ethnic/nationalist prejudices. And there's a totally separate matter of the genealogical work of user:Kittybrewster. While the first issue is complex the second issue is straightforward. Kittybrewster's edit history is concerned mostly with his family members and other people in his genealogical database. That's a problem with WP:COI and with WP:V. Citing one's own website to write articles about oneself and one's relatives violates several core concepts of Wikiepdia. While we shouldn't foster an "anti-hereditary bias" nor should we foster a pro-hereditary bias either. If we want to address the serisous and complex dispute between editors who support Irish Republicans vs those who support English/Scottish nobility then I'd support mediation. But the Arbuthnot-cruft is unrelated to that dispute. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where efforts have been made to improve source materiéls in accordance with WP:V these are simply ridiculed and even sometimes deleted. Also it is not a battle between supporters of British nobility and republicans (although I agree that is how his detractors see it). I would say it is simply a question of recording the British status quo correctly and properly. There are those who oppose this for personal and political reasons. But they should leave all these hang-ups outside an encyclopaedia. They cannot alter the status quo by machinations and hand-wringing on Wikipedia. herein lies the real problem, I fear. David Lauder 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation would be a good idea at this point, considering the massive edit war about the topic. All I see is a serious COI situation with Kittybrewster, and a dispute over the notability of the articles in question. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time we just had a Kittybrewster and friends page? where they could conduct their daily wikidrama at full-length? --Fredrick day 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster's edit history is irrelevant here. Is there a CoI for these republican editors who edit articles relating to Irish republican organisations, I wonder? --Counter-revolutionary 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-revolutionary, please either back up these insinuations or stop making them (no interest in the actual issue one way or the other, but that is out of line). They are disruptive. Neil (►) 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lauder, wouldn't best practice have been to name the editors accused, which include such luminaries as User:Mackensen and User:Giano, and notify them that they are (vaguely, hintingly, yet acrimoniously) being discussed here? Bishonen | talk 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see you have done that. You too I note have been a recent participant in all this. What I really wanted Admins to do was to go to the umpteen Talk pages and consider the comments by such people who I, at least, do not regard as luminaries, regardless of how many medals they have collected. Their arguments wouldn't stand a chance in a university. David Lauder 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. Yes, I've notified Mackensen, Giano, BrownHairedGirl and Doc glasgow now. Perhaps you'd pitch in with a few more yourself. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First of all, thanks to Bishonen for the heads-up. Well, that's the first time I've been accused of an anti-hereditary bias. My edit history suggests otherwise and I'll thank you to stop making that accusation. My point has been throughout that baronets have no automatic presumption of notability, and that peers do not have any automatic presumption in themselves, but rather as members of a national legislature. I have repeated these arguments at Talk:Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, at some length, without much luck. I'm an original participant in the peerage project. I created Category:Baronets. I started List of Baronetcies. I wrote the guideline in the Manual of Style that determines how articles on baronets are named. I crafted the original formatting for articles on baronetcies. I hashed out the theory of presumptive notability for peers that I've alluded to. When I tell you that baronets have no automatic notability under WP's policies, and that individual notability must be asserted per WP:BIO you might try engaging the argument instead of making repeated personal attacks and gross insinuations of character. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate, but related, issues are at stake here.

One is the large number of biographical articles which Kittybrewster has created on his own family, many of whom are of questionable notability: some have been deleted at AfD, while others have survived, and some appear to have survived in the hope that they may be improved.

The other issue is the conduct of the editors involved, and sadly there have been far too many incidents of incivility or other inappropriate behaviour from different sides of this dispute. It has become very partisan, and I have repeatedly found that any intervention is rapidly characterised as evidence of being one or the other warring camps.

Having been initially very concerned about the incivility of some of those objecting to the proliferation of Arbuthnot articles, I have over the last month or two seen a fair bit of incivility from the other side, but having spent a lot of time looking at it all I have come come to the view that it is too easy to let the incivility cloud the problem that there is a big COI problem here, and that there are serious notability problems.

Both sides to this dispute appear to have engaged in some degree of block voting, and there have been plausible allegations of the use of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets by both sides.

I'm afraid that in the end, I have to conclude that the main reason it has all become so personalised is that Kittybrewster constructed a situation where he was personally identified with so many of these contested articles; that had the effect of making it hard for both sides to separate the articles from the person who created them and who defends them as part of his family. (I'm not suggesting that this was done with a malicious intent, just observing hat the effect is).

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that WP:COI should be strengthened, and that there should be a much clearer warning to avoid creating (or editing) articles on ones own family. I don't think that when he started this Kittybrewster fully understood the extent of the problems which would be caused by the conflict of interest, and the sad thing is that he now seems to be so upset by the bitterness of the resulting dispute that he does not seem to be in a frame of mind to step back and consider how closer attention to the spirit of WP:COI could provide a route out of the conflictual situation in which he sounds himself.

It may be that David Lauder is right to suggest that some editors are mounting a vendetta, but if there is such a vendetta that should not cause us to overlook the substantive COI and notability problems with these articles.

I think that we now need to take some steps to defuse the situation, which comes to WP:ANI far too often. I would suggest that it would be best to start by seeking a block on Kittybrewster editing any articles about members of the Arbuthnot family, and for other editors to be more pro-active in insisting on civility by all parties. There are many good editors on both sides whose passions have become unhelpfully inflamed by the messy history of this dispute, and I suggest that it might be appropriate or many of them to also withdraw from this area. Is there any way that we can create some sort of task force to review all these articles more calmly and make some recommendations? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kittybrewster should steer clear of his family articles, per WP:COI. And others should stop flinging mud. The assertion that personal bias is the only motivation for wanting to prune the Arbuthnot walled garden is factually inaccurate, I have nothing against the aristocracy and counted at least one baron among my friends, although he is now deceased. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Guy, for saying a lot of what I wanted to say, but much more concisely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there has been some nasty to-and-fro between supporters on either side on the Irish Question for some time (from both sides, it has to be said). Some of that nastiness seems to have fed through into discussions of Kittybrewster's other contributions. Both of these things are to be regretted.

However, the fact remains that Kittybrewster has been creating lots of poorly-sourced articles on members of his family, many of whom have but the barest hint of notability (several senior officers in the British Army, an RAF pilot in the Second World War, and so it goes on). This is a problem - we are an encyclopedia, not a genealogical website - and the worst of them have to go. But the best of them should remain and will hopefully be improved in time: thanks to Giano - one of the people who seems to be being accused of some sort of vendetta - Harriet Arbuthnot is a featured article!. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather resent this. I judge articles on their merits not on their surname or who wrote them. Many of the Arbuthnot articles are encyclopedic - others need massive improvement and real sourcing - some IMO don't belong here. I take each on its merits. Indeed I even created an article on a notable Arbuthnot spouse that Kittybrewster had omitted. I note that Giano has also put his considerable writing talents into improving various related articles. General assertions of 'vendetta' and 'incivility' by those wishing to defend some of the poorer articles are unhelpful. Please provide real evidence of misconduct or avoid ad hominem arguments altogether. David Lauder, please refrain from generalised personal attacks - unless you are willing to name names and cite evidence. Dispute resolution is open to you. Coming here with innuendos and vague assertion, and not even bothering to name, let alone notify, those you feel are acting improperly is downright cowardly.--Doc^g 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say that I really have any considered opinion on the inherent notability of baronets or the lack thereof. But I do know that scrutiny and examination of these articles is warranted. I honestly don't fault Kittybrewster at all. There are a lot of very interesting and historically significant people in the Arbuthnot family, and he obviously cares deeply about his heritage and position in the British social order. These aren't bad things, although they are a conflict of interest. However, these articles need help. Most are stubs sourced primarily to private geneology resources and titles listings. Many are very stubby. Look at Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet. There is quoted text, attributed to the 4th Baronet, without citation. That's a problem. These articles have a lot of problems like that. Alexander Arbuthnot (paddle steamer)? I don't even know who this ship is named after; the attribution of the name is to an external link to www.kittybrewster.com. That's a problem. These articles have their share of problems like that, too. With the volume of material involved, the best course of action is probably to initially condense topics to pages like Arbuthnot Baronets and Viscount of Arbuthnott, and get the referencing right from the start. When appropriately cited content for individuals reaches the point where it can stand alone as an article, the redirects can be split back off into stand-alone pages. I wouldn't expect (but somehow fear...) that this would be objectionable to Kittybrewster or the other editors supporting him. The net result is pages that are consistently better-documented and more engaging than an endless series of stubby rote biographies. The encyclopedia wins. The Arbuthnot family wins. This sort of process won't be quick, of course, but for a family history dating back into the 1600s, surely the result would be worth the wait? Serpent's Choice 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a very useful approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind doing some of the heavy lifting, but it may be a little while. Obviously, a lot of this is going to need references to dead tree material that I don't have immediately available. 17th-19th century British baronets are practically the embodiment of "stuff you shouldn't just Google and declare done." Serpent's Choice 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What we are discussing here is the incivility, which speaks for itself; not Kittybrewster's edits. --Counter-revolutionary 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop obfuscating some glaring vanity issues with vague accusations of incivility. For some people it's a favourite club to beat their opponents. I don't expect seasoned wikipedians to buy into this. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was my initial understanding, from a cursory reading of events, that this was about the articles. Or, rather, about the redirection of Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. However, if you feel there have been civility issues that cannot be handled through polite discussion on article or user talk pages, then might I suggest the third party options in the dispute process. AN/I, on the other hand, is "not part of our Dispute Resolution process" and this does not appear to relate to "misuse of administrative powers." As an editorial aside, presenting diffs that indicate behavior of concern will be more persuasive than broad, uncited allegations of Irish republican bias. Serpent's Choice 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just realised - half of un in this dispute are supposed to be part of the Wikipedia hivemind. Ironic, really. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? --Counter-revolutionary 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

............splosh! Giano 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I just wonder what "half of un" means?--Counter-revolutionary 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that, as 95% author of John Arbuthnot and strong anti-kittybrewster's family album approach who has had his own acerbic comments on the value of writing about the illustrious progenitors (to wit: I want articles about my ancestors to be fair not glorious, and that's why I would never rely upon family memoirs for such a thing and why I would vastly prefer never, ever to write one), and as a person who believes that writing about one's own family is a breaking of WP:AUTO, that it is not a step up from school children writing about their friends and their gaming clans, is that I'm very disappointed that I'm not one of the people David Louder considers villainous. Geogre 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive editor who frequently engages in incivility, tendentious editing, and edit warring, as demonstrated by his block log. he has shown complete disdain for Wikipedia policy for well over a year now, and he continues unabated- with recent incivility (i.e. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]), edit warring (for which he was blocked recently, please see his contributions post-block), tendentious editing (i.e. [43], [44][45]). he also refers to me abusively as "Intaqallah", both on- ([46], [47]) and off-wiki, the latter being when he was unashamedly soliciting meatpuppets to "vote-away" in an AfD and edit war on select articles, in the interests of gaming Wikipedia. he does not heed the warnings given to him by multiple administrators, and his talk page is testament to that. ITAQALLAH 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want us to do about it? Viridae^Talk 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever you deem reasonable in ceasing the personal attacks, incivility, and other inappropriate behaviour. i do request some sort of intervention, apologies if i wasn't specific with that. ITAQALLAH 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Itaqallah should cool down a bit. He himself reverts at least as much as Mike18xx, and misspellings of his user name such as "Intaqallah" can hardly be seen as "abusive", unless one is somehow very focused on finding "reasons" for making allegations of "personal attacks". If Itaqallah (better check that again for typo's, or it will come back hard on me it seems...), is so sensitive about how other editors spell his user name, then perhaps he could choose a new more common English user name, that other editors are more likely to remember the spelling of. This being said, Itaqallah has been extremely active in his attempts to get users that disagree with his personal opinions removed and banned from the English Wikipedia, and among other things he has previously made attempts to get me banned from at least parts of the 'pedia [48]. Perhaps Itaqallah should try to work with other editors instead of harassing them with his constant attempts to get them banned. For now it seems that he haven't made a single contribution to Mike's discussion page, except for a couple of templates regarding an image. In my opinon, Itaqallah should consider actually working with people, instead of harassing them with requests about them get banned. -- Karl Meier 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is more serious than "Itaqallah should consider actually working with people" Karl. My main concern would not be Mike 18xx's uncivility or his 9 times blocks, mainly for uncivility, but solliciting meatpuppets. This issue re solliciting meatpuppets at Faith Freedom International blog has been discussed a couple of months ago here at the AN/I and now it is getting disruptive with Tauphon (talk · contribs) as well. So action needs to be taken. I cannot do anythng as i've been involved in a debate w/ Mike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiislam (conflict of interests?) and probably my action would not be appropriate as my username would be a "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" for Mike 18xx. So which is important? "Itaqallah needing to work better w/ others" or all these disruptions and uncivility? Meatpuppeting should stop once and for all and Mike 18xx should consider actually working with people in a civil manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see why it should be a problem that an editor go to a website that he has created an article about, and mention this on the sites forum. The users of the websites is likely to be some of the best informed people regarding what perhaps makes it notable, and their input might very well be useful in the process of determining whether or not it is indeed notable and should be kept or deleted. Another fact is that the point about soliciting meat-puppets doesn't make sense either. First, an AfD is not a vote, it is a debate, second, any "votes" from new and/or unregistered contributers doesn't count. It doesn't make sense to blame him for the actions of Tauphon. Mike, like all other editors is only responsible for his own actions, and he has as far as I know never supported him in any wrong doing anywhere. Any speculations about what might have motivated him to come here is also only just that; Speculations that is entirely irrelevant to Mike's good standing on Wikipedia. What I frankly more worried about is Itaqallah's obvious stalking of editors outside Wikipedia, where he take it upon himself to monitor various forum's for comments made by Wikipedians, in order to attack them here. As you properly know, this is not the first time he has used the results of his off-site monitoring efforts to attack people here. As for his comments regarding your surname, I'd wish he haven't done that. As an administrator that actually seems to genuinely care about remaining reasonably neutral, I don't think you deserve to have such accusations and suspicions raised against you. I don't know if he has already apologized for it, but perhaps he will do the right thing if you ask him? As for his block log, I believe it is also important to notice that he has only been blocked one time the last eight months, and that was for a 3RR. The other issues in the block-log seems to be mostly a thing of the past. I believe the best solution would be that Itaqallah give up his project monitoring editors outside Wikipedia and end his constant attempts to have editors disagree with banned. Mike should on the other hand be more careful about what he accuses people off in heated moments and remember that this is against policy. It would properly help to clean the air a lot if he admit that he was wrong about making such accusations and insinuations. -- Karl Meier 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've noted from my words, all i ask from Mike 18xx is to behave in a civil manner and avoid controversies. He's just not a newbie. We don't have to waste our time arguing about matpuppeting. It is just highly inappropriate according to the policy. We don't have to waste our time arguing about Mike 18xx meatpuppeting: Everyone please attend to the revert war on Wikipedia's FFI page concerning Intaqalla's repeated attempts to marginalize and POV the WikiIslam section. All I need are one or two people to revert. Please also keep track of whether or not Intaqalla violates Wikipedia's 3RR policy. So as you see, the solliciting isn't limited to votes but to edit warring and game the system to get someone else blocked for 3RR. Noway!

As for my username, i just don't need an apology as it doesn't matter if someone calls me X or "my mamma". He is invited to read these quotes.

• "We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box." - Anon.
• "They stick you with those names, those labels -- ‘rebel’ or whatever; whatever they like to use. Because they need a label; they need a name. They need something to put the price tag on the back of." - Johnny Depp -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, i don't really have the time to deal with much of what you wrote about me - not only is much of it pretty fanciful, you certainly are not an impartial party here given our history. you noted that Mike had only one block in the past eight months. that would appear reasonable, were it not for the fact he went on a hiatus in October, returning days before he was blocked again. you employ an incredible amount of spin to downplay Mike's soliciting of meatpuppets, gross incivility, and his deliberate baiting, yet you appear quite eager to take pot-shots at my own person for issues which you have blown out of proportion. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah: I am sure that you don't have much time replying to comments about your stalking and endless attempts to have editors that disagree with your personal opinions banned. Tracking down Wikipedian's down off-site must be a time consuming business. It is true that Mike18xx was not very active on Wikipedia during a few months, and it is also true that he was "welcomed" back by you with sometimes sarcastic comment such as "having trouble logging in Mike?". Anyway, you don't have to reply to my comments. You just have to end your crusade to have editors disagreeing with your personal opinions banned. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF: To post what was posted at that forum is of course the most appropriate one can think of, but at the same time I believe off site staking of Wikipedian's is something that much worse. I believe it is something that can really discourage a lot people from editing here. I still remember BhaiSaab who took his off-site stalking as far as calling the workplace of a person that he disagreed with. The intend of his off-site stalking I believe was to drive people he disagreed with away from the site, just like Itaqallah use his off-site "investigations" to get rid of people that he disagree with. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Meier, it should go without saying that off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppetry is inappropriate, and I see nothing wrong with Itaqallah keeping an eye on it. Can you blame him, seeing as he's been twice been specifically identified as an enemy editor? Soliciting meatpuppetry is bad enough, but urging FFI participants to scrutinize particular editors borders on harassment, and is completely unacceptable. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.Proabivouac 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had extensive interaction with him on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination), and not in an exactly "allied" way - however, I never found him to be especially incivil, or in any way disruptive - rather, he just seems to be determined, outspoken, and edits with feeling. I actually quite liked discussing with him - although my opinion on the matter was eventually disagreed with by the debate, I still think my discussions with him played an important role. --Haemo 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know. I picked more or less the top four contributions of his just now [49], [50], [51] and [52] and in my view there isn't a collegial edit in the bunch. I'm not sure this user has learned much from previous blocks. I don't think I'd care to edit in the same areas as him as it would be less than pleasant. That's the definition of a (mildly) disruptive editor if you ask me. I admit bias, I've blocked him before after he didn't heed warnings to be less disruptive in his approach. I'd support at least an admonishment that his approach is in need of changing. But of course, pure civility blocks don't often work. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that there has been an effort to resolve this dispute, a user-conduct RfC might be considered. I suppose this section qualifies as such an attempt if there has not been one already, and I urge Mike18xx to respond to it in a productive spirit.Proabivouac 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All measures should be preventive and not punitive. Following this logic, Mike 18xx should refrain from meatpuppeting and chill out in order to avoid being uncivil. If there was no meatpuppetry there would have been no off-site stalking. Anyone has the total legitimate right to follow my off-site activities which are directly related to the functioning of wikipedia. In this case, Itaqallah found out that there is a massive meatpuppetry based on the All I need are one or two people to revert strategy. Would you accept to ask people to do the same Karl? I am certain you wouldn't. This is an unacceptable thing in wikipedia. We stand firm against harming the smooth process of how stuff work here. Itaqallah doesn't go foruming, voting and disrupting the off-wiki site. Mike 18xx has been doing just that. So i don't quite understand how you legitimate Mike's actions by accusing Itaqallah of something that wikipedia has no business w/. One is free to browse any page in the net and report to wikipedia about things that could harm it. I tell those people that We don't vote and we don't count them & We do not encourage edit warring indeed- we just discuss. I'll leave the civility issues for anyone else who might be interested to discuss them with Mike. So whether he would follow out train or else he could just easily change at the next station. There are many other busy passengers as there are trains. We don't need passengers avoiding payment (come to vote once in a year) and we need our train to preserve and protect its standards so we can attract more passengers (new editors who have much more to give to this project than a single seasonal vote). Anyway, it is time for the user in question to respond. Itaqallah has already said his bit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please.... To paraphrase Rodney King, Can't we all just be honest? They say I'm tendentious, uncivil and distruptive -- my goodness, you'd almost think I was being accused of not getting my facts right in the articles...except I'm not being accused of that here. In fact, I'd submit that this business is going the way it's going because I am getting my facts right in the articles, and some people find it very unpleasant when a cherished belief is skewered on the spit of a reference. To boil this broth down to its essence, FayssalF and Itaqallah do not appreciate the contributions of many editors (of which I am only one) to various Islam-relating articles, and are well-versed in laying about the Administrative Cudgel to get their way. This has been going on for years, and I doubt it's going to stop anytime soon. I see little to alter my expectations that it's probably going to get worse in the future. Personal mail: I urge you to respond to them with a productive spirit, aiming to address these complaints and resolve the dispute. --Proabivouac. I receive strong indication that there will never be any satisfactory "resolution" to the "dispute" short of complete "Submission" (a double-entendre) before the concerted campaign to savage articles by bad-faith AfDing absolutely everything in sight and drawing upon their own networks of supporters to swing in and post "delete"s regardless of merit. What can't be deleted will be neutered, merged, smooshed, crunched, reverted, marginalized and mangled down into as small of a nearly invisible and innocuous a pellet as possible. Maintaining a "productive spirit" is extraordinarly difficult amidst such destruction.

You will do whatever you are going to do, and whatever the resultant effect upon article veracity is will in turn affect Wikipedia's credibility as a source of accurate and pertinent information in matters occupying the great void between dry scientific obscura and cartoon episode guides. Such credibility is forfeit in the blink of an eye in the internet age, and, once lost, virtually impossible to recover.--Mike18xx 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx, think practically: let's suppose just for the sake of argument that Itaqallah and FayssalF want you gone, as you say, because you are adding facts to the articles that they don't like. Okay. They can't just say that, because that's not against policy, so they point to things like incivility, meatpuppet solicitation and edit-warring instead. Okay. So don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. There, you see, I've accepted your assumptions at face value, without judgment or rebuttal, and the way forward is still exactly the same.Proabivouac 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want you gone or not gone. Choose your train. I am focusing on MEATPUPPETING. It is in bold. I am not talking about your uncivility (i am proud of my name as you are - plus don't forget that your username is biblical and therefore it is middle-eastern as well. So next time be accurate and say Arab or Muslim so people would understand better what you mean). So talk about it. Don't talk about your edits as i haven't mentioned them at all. I may not like edits of a dozen of editors but still this is wikipedia where anyone can edit. Meatpuppeting encouraging edit warring is not acceptable. Instead of aknowledging what you've done wrong you are still trying to talk about cakes. We got rules here. As per Proabivouac, don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. So again and again, you stop or you'll be stopped. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To chime in, I only recently came across this user in the Jihad Watch AfD. That and the post history shows very clearly a user with an anti-Islam axe to grind, with "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" being a rather notable slur. Tarc 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through your contributions on articles such as Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Hamas makes it obvious to me that you yourself are not entirely without opinions, Tarc. I can understand that you may be annoyed that the article that you mention above wasn't deleted, and that Mike voted against your wishes, but the media attention it has received should have made it obvious to you that the articles subject was clearly and without any doubt notable. The debate just reflected that reality. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a controversial AFD closure a number editors including an admin are indulging in reverting and counter reverting without a single intent to discuss these changes without ever reaching consensus. Please look into it. Thanks Taprobanus 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues related to Srilanka and Tamil have to be sorted out once and for all via the dispute resolution process. Many admins tried to help but in vain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that WP:RS is pretty clear on this one. Since when was Tamilnet not a partisan source and a random tripod site, random videos posted on google, info from websites of openly activist organisations acceptable. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being bold and simply removing sources which are clearly not RS, and I noted this as such in my edit summary. The problem is some singletopic people on either side of the fence randomly adding whatever suits them. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There another thread below discussing this as well. I'd suggest discussions to be held at one place. So i'll be commenting below. Thanks Blnguyen. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This admin is already involved in a ArbCom case and was recently desysopped.

He blocked me:

• without warning
• for 2RR in this article
• with fake charges in log
• only without blocking other parties
• while the discussion was ongoing

Is he ignorant of Wikipedia policies? Or does he own the article? I suspect him to be a teenage fundamentalist.

What action would be taken, if any? Anwar 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Edit warring is bad. 3RR isn't a licence to make 3 edits in 24 hours, stop, and start the next day. 1 or 2 disruptive reverts will see you blocked, not just 3. Do you want to be treated like a child and given a little wrap over the knuckles everytime you make 2 reverts, or do we treat you like mature, experienced editor who knows they're edit warring ? Nick 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nick. What is disturbing is that it appears there are multiple editors there reverting between 2 POV versions, using weasel words and tagging their summaries "rvv". Sorry kids, but vacillating between POV versions is not reverting vandals.--Isotope23 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few corrections - (a) I was "recently desysopped" based on my own request and re-sysopped on my own request. (b) I'm not a teenager, nor a fundamentalist and (c) the only reason I didn't block the other edit-warring parties is because they are party to the ArbCom case as I am.

And Anwar, spare us the shit, ok? One look at your block log should tell anybody about the nature of your activities and of what you don't need to be warned about. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Anwar was adding a POV that was previously discussed and disapproved on the article's talk page. In spite of his repeated reverting, editors were removing his addition with polite comments to discuss it on the talk page. There is a civil discussion going on there now, Talk:Hinduism, while the article is protected from further edit warring. This dispute was handled just as it should have been. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As action to be taken, I would recommend that if Anwar calls people "teenage fundamentalists" again, he should be blocked for personal attacks. >Radiant< 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do block people for tendious editing and we do indeed block people who can't learn from past lessons (i.e personal attacks). Please behave. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a tendious edit? Bus stop 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wikt:tendentious edit is one that wastes a lot of time for no good reason. Moreschi ^Talk 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more locally: Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Many moons ago, I remember that essay being cited as a reason for a block. Wasn't technically a problem, of course, since the essay pretty much just sums up how to abide by civility and 3RR anyways. Bladestorm 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer Bus stop's "tendious" question  :) --Isotope23 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tendious edits - Two edits less than a dozen that are really boring. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(good one, CBW) Tvoz |talk 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Bus stop knows that i meant tendentious ;) The bottom line is summarized by Moreschi and more precisely by CambridgeBayWeather. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevant archived ANI report. I started the discussion at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F, after Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) and Askari Mark (talk · contribs) questioned my reverts. I willingly question Anwar's motives, esp. after he vandalized my userpage. Discussion was ongoing? That's rich. Anwar never took the opportunity to discuss, further suggesting this was an ideological endeavor bent on turning wikipedia into a soapbox for anti-Hindu rhetoric.Bakaman 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lions3639 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears to have engaged in massive vote fraud at an WP:RM poll, now archived at Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007. He did this in 2 ways: as follows:

1. Lions3639 appears to have written a newspaper article about this poll in The Chosun Ilbo, a major Korean newspaper. This resulted in over 50 WP:SPA's disrupting the poll. This is the article in question (in Korean) written by "lions3639@chosun.com", which is his identical User ID.
2. Lions3639 has engaged in sockpuppetry of his own, as confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639.

Can somebody please go ahead and block these socks? (FYI: Davidpdx has the most edits).

If there's any Checkuser reading this, can you do a more comprehensive RFCU on the poll participants? The RFCU done was only a partial check, and I suspect there are more sockpuppets among the voters.

Also, as the outcome was clearly affected, please re-evaluate the closing of this poll, now archived at Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007? The closing admin, Husond, has already promised to review this case again.--Endroit 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond has just reviewed and overturned the RM decision. Thank you Husond! We're still waiting for someone to review the RFCU results and block the sockpuppets.--Endroit 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU Case has been overturned as well by Voice of All. With this, I'd like this case to be closed.--Endroit 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a free-license image on the La Toya Jackson article and administrators continue to remove it without any justification. please investigate. [53] Rhythmnation2004 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you referring to Image:Latoyatile.jpg? How is that encyclopedic? It does not identify the person at all. --Iamunknown 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... is it possible that they removed the image because it doesn't, in any way shape or form, resemble her? I mean, even slightly? If an image doesn't illustrate the subject of an article, how can it have any use there? Free or not, an image that doesn't improve the article really doesn't belong there. What's more, that's really a content issue. What do you expect the admins to do? Block someone for taking out a squiggly blob? Bladestorm 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you people for being the voices of reason here :) I've posted similar comments to the talk page of the article which is probably the best place to discuss this since it's a content dispute and no admin action is required. Metros 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is La Toya Jackson. I made the tile myself based on the cover of her No Relations album. Rhythmnation2004 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

em.. what? as a piece of photoshop art it could be interesting to someone but as a photo to identify a figure? nope. --Fredrick day 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that you made it yourself, and that the subject of the image is La Toya Jackson. It still doesn't add anything to the article, and I have removed it again. --OnoremDil 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You derived it from Image:A no-relations.jpeg? If so, it is a derivative work of a non-free image and cannot be freely licensed. --Iamunknown 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it adds nothing is both your opinion and insulting to me. Since there is currently no image, ANY image is better than none. Therefore, the image should stay.

TO ALL ADMINS: if this image is removed, please delete my account from Wikipedia as I am tired of being bullied by opinionated and prejudiced administrators. It is quite obvious that regardless of my extensive contributions to Wikipedia, my presence is not wanted. Rhythmnation2004 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How have you made the conclusion that your presence is not wanted? The only thing that is not wanted is that image, is has nothing to do with your presence. --Iamunknown 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Rhytmnation2004 has a belief that there is a crusade against him and his edits. See specifically this discussion regarding an image that we deleted that he felt should stay Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. Metros 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Let's Rock the House where the user insisted on adding information about a supposed re-release of the single. Who was the owner of the "record label" who was re-releasing the single? You can probably guess. Metros 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why for the last several weeks, every edit I have made has been challened or reverted by unruly administrators. Particularly Metros, who should be stripped of his adminship for harassing a user, along with User:Coelacan. Both of them have tracked my edits and complained about most of them. Succeeded in having an image deleted regardless of the fact that a legitimate and valid fair use rationale was provided per Wikipedia's requirements on writing fair use rationales for non-free licensed images and that it was extensively proven that the image was irreplaceable, and have basically made my experience on Wikipedia a living hell. Rhythmnation2004 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhythmnation, I'm sorry that the actions of others have been burdensome. I would like to point out, however, that though you may disagree with their actions and they with your edits, you and they are all acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I hope that you will keep that in mind when interactions with other users become burdensome. Why not try to understand the issues from their point of view and then consider their suggestions? It might make your experience on Wikipedia more enjoyable. --Iamunknown 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the admins who are out to get you - why are regular editors like me saying "that image should not be used?" and why did you come to AN/I if you were going to throw your toys out of the pram if people didn't agree with you? --Fredrick day 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamunknown, You seem to think that all of these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. it isn't. They're out to team up with eachother and terrorize the "peasant" users to the point where we will no longer contribute. And these admins have succeeded in their goals. This is why I want my account deleted.

Fredrick day, you don't agree with me. You said it isn't suitable to identify a figure, therefore you disagree. Rhythmnation2004 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. And I continue to believe so. Accounts on Wikipedia cannot be deleted, but you do have a right to vanish; or you could simply abandon your account. I, however, hope that you do not. Try believing that the admins are acting in good faith, then try to understand their concerns. I know copyright- and image-related issues can be confusing, so maybe do some reading at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read those policies, and followed the EXACT PROCEDURES to ensure that any removal of File:LaToyaJackson.jpg was unjustifiable. Of course, these terrible admins found their ways around it pretty quick. They shove their own personal beliefs onto Wikipedia instead of remaining neutral as they should. Because THEY don't like La Toya Jackson, they have to make her article boring by removing all pictures. That's TYPICAL of most admins! I do plan on abandoning my account. I wish there was a way to take back ever edit I made too, because I would. It would of course, ruin all the La Toya Jackson articles since I created EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (one for every album, single, the book, the discography, etc.) and received not so much as a pat on the back. Rhythmnation2004 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically did you do to attempt to obtain a free image besides trying to contact her management? --OnoremDil 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no polite way to put this - the main reason your image should not be used is that it's crap - it looks like some vaguely humanoid figure that has some form of facial disfigurement and has a third eye in the centre of their forehead. I'm sorry if that sound uncivil but we seem to dancing around the key issue why that image should not be used - the removal of it on those grounds is entirely justifiable. --Fredrick day 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third eye? I was thinking it was a bullet hole... Metros 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that five different admins agreed that it was replacable at the discussion page and then 5 more users (1 non-admin and 4 admins) agreed at the deletion review means nothing? We're just all out to get you in some mass conspiracy I guess? Then with this image, there are about 7 people that I can see who disagree with you and several of them are not administrators. Do you think I secretly controlled all of these other users to post here? Metros 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Onerem: What else can I do besides contact her management? Stalk her to try and get a photograph I suppose? To Fredrick day: Those comments are insulting and had it been me who had left a similar comment on your talk page, I would have been reprimanded by administration. To Metros: What I think is that all admins team up together regardless of how idiotic the topic is, and do everything they can to chase away contributers. This is exactly what you have done to me. Rhythmnation2004 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest stalking her. An image is not needed that badly for the article. On the previous deletion discussion, the suggestion was made several times that you try to contact a Flickr user who had images. Each time you replied something along the lines of, "I already tried to contact her management." Pictures are out there. It was potentially replaceable. You decided not to put forth the effort, and apparently nobody else thought it was that important. That doesn't make the deletion of the image unjustified. --OnoremDil 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Onorem, an image is not an absolute necessity here and potentially a free image of the individual exists somewhere out there. That said, it isn't really necessary to attack Rhythmnation2004's artistic ability. Suffice to say that the image doesn't really illustrate the person in question and leave it at that.--Isotope23 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now speedily deleted File:Latoyatile.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) per WP:CSD#G12. Sometimes a {{db}} tag is all that is needed. Sandstein 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has promised to have an admin block (or "delete") me if I ever post another warning message on their talk page. (diff) There was a misunderstanding here, but this user seems bent on making a big deal out of it. Look at the history of their talk page (they've deleted it twice) and you'll see they've been warned for incivility before. Thoughts?--Sable232 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let someone else warn them in future. Neil (►) 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Sysops don't block without good reason. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about that, it's just that I want to let an outside party look at it before something gets out of hand. --Sable232 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed through what happened here and left a polite message on their talk page - Alison ☺ 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for compromise over disputed text for this article, please see Talk: Regina Neighbourhoods. However, 3 users have dismissed the compromise and I do not want to start an edit war, as this ends up with me being blocked. Could someone , please, visit , mediate and comment. Thanks in advance.--207.81.56.49 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, as above: This is the administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is along the corridor, fifth door on the left. Uncle G 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew has repeatedly changed the {{Memoryalpha}} {{Memory Alpha}} {{HarryPotterWiki}} and {{hpw}} templates citing WP:CONSENSUS for doing so. This has resulted in 6 or so edits to the Memory Alpha templates over the past 72 hours, sufficiently spaced out to avoid any blatant 3RR blocks. When asked where a discussion took place regarding the Memory Alpha templates and where consensus could be found, Matthew responded on my talk page with the reason "Silence equals consent". It's quite clear that there is not silence, nor a consensus for the changes Matthew has made.

Something needs to be done regarding Matthew's behaviour here and I'm open to suggestions on whether a strong reprimand would the preferred option, or whether there is a need for a block and perhaps further editing sanctions. Nick 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To set things straight: I'm enforcing policy > Phil's POV pushing. I intend to file an arbitration case in due course, principally due to the misuse of administrative abilities. Matthew 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused Phil of POV pushing, you've also accused me of conflict of interest. I assume you can substantiate both of these - David Gerard 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What POV am I pushing, exactly? Also, which administrative abilities have I misused? Phil Sandifer 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, Matthew first nominated Template:FreeContentMeta for deletion. When this was obviously failing to generate consensus, he nominated Template:HarryPotterWiki, a child template of the first. When this started going badly he decided to just bugger the failure to get support on TfD and revert away. It is... an unfortunate style of edit war. Phil Sandifer 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an arbitration case would be both unwise and ridiculously premature. This looks like a completely ordinary edit war to me. Crotalus horridus 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rather ill-advised one, don't you think? --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't any edit war. bit of a pointless argument if you ask me.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just stop the edit warring, and see what comes out of the discussion about these prettified external links/ads for free-content wiki's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping this down for the record. This is a case of, as far as I can tell, a single edit warrior warring up to what he considers the limit of his "entitlement" to edit war against multiple opposition [54] [55] [56], then waiting a couple of days and starting again [57] (note disingenuous edit summary) ignoring warning messages about disruption [58] and continuing [59] .

In addition it seems that Matthew engaged in a brief but very broad edit war with User:TTN on the following articles:

• The Shadow Duelist, Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boss Luffy Returns! A Dream or Reality Lottery Trouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Man's Promise, Luffy and the Whale Vow to Meet Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Shadow Duelist, Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Completely Infuriated! Kuro vs. Luffy, Final Battle! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• An Unexpected Guest! Sanji's Food and Gin's Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle! The Black Cat Pirate Crew, Battle on the Slope! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Desperate Situation! Beast Tamer Mohji vs. Luffy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of The A-Team episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Honorable Liar? Captain Usopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even if I Die, I Won't Kick You! Sanji's Manly Chivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fukurou's Miscalculation - My Cola is the Water of Life! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grand Duel! Zoro the Swordsman vs. Cabaji the Acrobat! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Famous Cook! Sanji of the Floating Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fear, Mysterious Power! Pirate Clown Captain Buggy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Detective Memoirs of Chief Straw Hat Luffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The First Obstacle? Giant Whale Laboon Appears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Blueprints Aren't Passed! Franky's Decision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Criminal is Boss Luffy? Chase the Vanished Great Sakura Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luffy's Revival! Kaya's Life and Death Confrontation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Revealing The Conspiracy! The Pirate Caretaker, Captain Kuro! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Retrieve the 5 Keys! The Straw Hat Crew vs CP9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Protect Kaya! Usopp Pirate Gang Takes Action! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Power of the Devil Fruit! Kaku and Jyabura Transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morgan vs. Luffy! Who is This Beautiful Young Girl? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luffy's Past! The Red-Haired Shanks Appears! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bubble User Kalifa! Nami Draws Near to the Soap's Trap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zoro's New Technique Explodes! The Katana's Name is Sogeking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• You are a Special Animal! Gaimon and his Wonderful Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Who Will Win? Showdown Between the True Powers of the Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Coupled with singular unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion, this is problem behavior. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the article Juice Plus. I agree with Tony. T_{Talk to me} 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As unpolitical the behaviour of Matthew is, when it comes to the reverting of the redirecting of the external link templates to the interwiki boxes, Matthew was right. There was no proper consensus on the replacement of this link template with the linkbox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It the behavior which is the problem. There are more sensible ways of disputing bold actions than massive reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twist

This case needs some further review. Yes matthew TfD'ed {{FreeContentMeta}}. He did this at 18:15, May 26, 2007 [60]. He had every right to dispute this new style of external link. However it was considered to be WP:POINT behaviour because of the relative small edit war here: [61]. However that was not to say that the TfD was totally out of line. There was a little bit of discussion for less than one day [62], which was going nowhere, because the same people of the previous edit war were involved.

From here on, I'm sticking to the Memoryalpha case, but almost the same applies to the HP case... Until recently all pages used {{Memoryalpha}} in this revision: [63] On May 27, 2007 00:57 User:Phil Sandifer created a new version of this external link template [64]. On 16:24, May 27, 2007, Phil redirected the textual version of the templated to the "pimped out" version of the template. [65]. This is where Matthew protested against and he reverted. He did not like this "pimped out" style and did not see why it became necessary all of a sudden to force this upon everyone. A lot of reverts were the result and that was some bad judgement of several people. Matthew had every right to question wether this was at all needed, although not trough an editwar.

Phil then on the 28th requested [66] User:^demon to run his bot to replace all occurences of the old {{Memoryalpha}} to the newly styled {{Memory Alpha}} This bot started running at 01:37, May 28, 2007 [67] and made most of the replacements. This has made this entire TfD of FreeContentMeta explode of course. Now this new style was being forced upon people, while the TfD of the "parent"-template wasn't even finished, and also made this whole thing terribly hard to revert.

To summarize:

1. Matthew behaved bad for edit warring
2. Phil behaved bad for pushing his pretty boxes out there, while some people were objecting to it, and he didn't give a lot of warning to other users.. He could have easily waited with his MA changes to see the result of the TfD. Why the hell couldn't the two templates have co-existed for a while ?
3. David took Phil's side without looking further then to revert Matthew and not considering the fact that others might object to this as well.

Personnally i'd like to see the textual version back on all the pages. If people want a pretty box they can add it to each and every article they want, but this is not something you should force upon every article by redirecting the old version and having a bot rename all the old inclusions to the new inclusions. Yes Matthew was out of line, but it wasn't a baseless issue as some are trying to argue. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also took Phil's side. He did not make these changes without support. To state that Phil was wrong to edit the wiki is simply incorrect. He handled it very well. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are also involved yes. And i do think he was wrong. These were a lot of inclusions, and the edits have been of such a type that it was made difficult to revert and didn't leave people much choice as to what kind of link they want. At least not for the ordinary uninitiated editor. This was a major change to these external link templates and it could have been dealt with a lot better. There is BOLD, and there is pushing your box trough peoples throat without telling them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a tad more. Any call upon WP:BOLD is limited by scope and the ease with which bold changes can be reverted. Trough the forced redirects and template transclusion replacement this BOLD box became an action that surpassed the limits of WP:BOLD. If this needs to be reverted, then we need to do merges of edit histories or other stupid stuff to keep this proper.--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's easy to fix. You just have to undo the redirect and change the template to include its own bullet point and you should be back to normal. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This badly misrepresents what happened. First of all, I asked on several pages about converting the Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia templates to the box versions. There were no objections, and so I acted, which was reasonable and in line with WP:BOLD. The bot was not used to change templates - that would be silly, since the templates were at that point equivalent. The bot was used to clean up a relic of the old version of the template - a stray bullet point that appeared in the external links section with no item after it. I removed this only after being asked by people to. Other than that, there was no objection on the talk page of the Memory Alpha templates or on the Star Trek WikiProject for my changes. The only objections came from Matthew, who did not even bother until today to come to the talk pages of the templates and then only contributed two comments before going off to run an unapproved bot. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might misrepresent your intentions, but for most of the editors of the pages this will be how it is perceived. It's cool that you asked and that no one responded. Fact is that just not that many people actively follow most of those talk pages (believe me i know). I'm quite sure that most people only became aware after you started your changes, and many people still won't have noticed (well perhaps after the rename of the template, because that triggers a lot of watchlists). However badly Matthew handled it, he had an actual concern and was the first to respond in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying that regardless of Matthew, the case could have been handled better. For instance by simply having both versions of the template co-exist for a while. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by putting the original template up for TfD. That's usually also a great way to get some actual people involved in these cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I posted on the talk pages of the templates and the relevant WikiProjects, got no opposition, went through with the change, got requests for some clean-up but still no opposition, and somehow I'm the bad guy anyway? Phil Sandifer 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the "bad" comment too seriously. It was ironic mostly. But I do think that you excercised haste during your WP:BOLD action, and that's when haste should be avoided more then anything. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a solution to deal with this edit conflict here: User talk:Phil Sandifer#Proposed_solution_to_Memory_Alpha --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has posted a request that he be unblocked. Please see User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. I am referring the request here for discussion and consensus. All good-faith contributors are welcome to present an opinion here; any trolling or SPA accounts interfering with the discussion will be blocked. Newyorkbrad 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblocking. He'll be being closely watched anyway and is clearly interested in editing the Cherokee and connected articles, in which he unquestionably has expertise, and states he doesnt want to get involved in wikipedia: type pages, SqueakBox 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what he wrote? All that about Citizendium and Conservapedia? This is editing Merkey-style: do what I say or your rivals get the cash instead. This cannot be permitted. Quite apart from all the stuff about trolls, which he seems to define rather loosely. Moreschi ^Talk 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually said the cash isnt available any more and our rivals are irrelevant, SqueakBox 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. He does not recognise that he has done anything wrong, quite apart from the rest of the message, which can be briefly summarised as "Let me do whatever I want or you lose out on the money". We can't allow this. It's patent intimidation. Moreschi ^Talk 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's just a varient of a legal threat, and you turn your noses up a them as well. HalfShadow 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. I've been off the wiki for a bit so I'm still not sure I have a clue as to what the hell is going on, but there's nothing in that unblock request. There's a threat and some complaining, but not really anything pertaining to the block or why he should be unblocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no relevant information in his unblock request. (Hint: relevant information would involve him recognizing where he went wrong and saying he won't do it again.) Friday (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, he continues to argue that the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but "He who has the Gold, Rules". While that probably works elsewhere, it fails miserably when applied to a community based site like WP. He is still angling for special, preferential treatment based on him being a "major donor". Until that changes, there is nothing to discuss SirFozzie 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should be debating why exactly he should be blocked not why he should be unbl;ocked, SqueakBox 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was pretty much settled, Squeak. For disruption, breaches of CIVIL and AGF. SirFozzie 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it appears as though he's being a dick. HalfShadow 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say no at this time. If Jeff had left his point 1 off, I might be more inclined to agree to an unblock, but as Moreschi succinctly summarized, this would appear to me to be a a thinly veiled attempt by Merkey to buy his way back in and I don't necessarily see a reason to condone that sort of attitude. If he had honestly restricted himself to Cherokee related articles on his return, this would be a different story (the only contact I've ever had with Merkey was well over a year ago on a Cherokee related article and it was not an unpleasant experience despite his reputation). Given his attempts to redefine Wikipedia policy I don't see much value in having him edit right now. IMO, the Foundation can unblock him if they are so inclined. All that said, I don't think the continuation of a block right now should preclude him ever being unblocked. He's been the subject of a fair bit of trolling that appears to be intended to cause just this outcome (i.e. a Merkey block) and I'm not especially happy about the trolls being rewarded as it were.--Isotope23 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the clarification he gave on his talkpage, I'm striking my comment. If Jeff voluntarily stayed away from policy/guideline discussions and stuck to article/talkpage edits, I'd have no issue with him being unblocked.--Isotope23 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with all those above. Merkey's answer to wanting to be treated as "a normal editor" is that he'll stop his donations. This shows that he doesn't yet understand that what he donates is completely unrelated to how he's treated. Whether he donates $10M or nothing, if he acts like "a normal editor" he'll be treated as one, and if he acts in ways that require a ban, he'll be banned (and has been). The money is completely unrelated, and the only person who seems to think it's not is Merkey himself. When he recognizes how his actions here crossed the line so many times, and attempts to change that about himself, he'll be allowed back in whether he's still donating money or not. --Maelwys 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see how such a relentlessly arrogant and litigious individual could be a net positive to the project, no matter what he actually brings to it in terms of positive contributions. He clearly does not understand the fundamental mission of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation, and appears to have the sort of sense of entitlement that would get his coffee spat in at the local Starbucks. Haikupoet 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus for the controversial block in the first place. He has knowledge and insight that would benefit the project. It is time to unblock and hopefully the editors who like hounding him will stop or they will find themselves on the wrong end of a block. This block has rewarded the trolls as well as jerks. I say no to the trolls and yes to the unblock. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, did you just pull out the whole "if you're not with us, you're a [terrorist/jerk/troll]" thingie? That's not particularly conducive to a civilized discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if I should be mildly insulted...? HalfShadow 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say no to the trolls, but I also say no to the unblock. SirFozzie 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an 'if you're not with me, you're against us all' to me. Are we really going to let 'I've got the money, so you all better like me or I won't buy the ice cream' be the new rule for Wikipedia? Would that go under WP:WHOWANTSICECREAM? Leave him blocked. Legal threats (Indians will shut down WP if yu don't like me), dick moves (I'll take my money elsewhere) and general incivility. Take your money, there's the door, don't let it hit you in the ass, bye bye. ThuranX 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money for ice cream. What a naive statement as if wikipedia doesnt need continuous money to survive, let alone grow in a fiercely competitive market, SqueakBox 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs money to survive. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should grant special privileges to editors that donate. I'd like to see advertisements covering a quarter of each page before that happens. --OnoremDil 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Merkey's faults are, your comment is unproductive and needlessly inflammatory. —freak(talk) 20:53, May. 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Why are we still discussing this? I thought it was old news that Merkey was a troll. Can't we get back to doing something more productive than wiki-jerking over this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree. Merkey has caused way more than his share of problems and drama. Our integrity is not for sale. --ElKevbo 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm totally behind the block, probably more than the blocker. If he's all lovey-dovey with the Foundation, they can always intervene and unblock him. Until that happens, his outright ridiculous attitude of entitlement is enough justification for me to want to see him stay blocked. Lexicon (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please understand that it is almost certain that Merkey has never contributed anything to the Foundation. Ben-w 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The same cant be said for him and wikipedia, which is where our remit begins and ends, SqueakBox 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, let's focus on editorial contributions rather than financial ones. —freak(talk) 21:00, May. 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Leave Merkey blocked. He obviously doesn't care to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In addition, the threat of cutting off donations if he doesn't get his way also strikes me as a form of legal threat. That said, I'd also block the editors who have been harassing Merkey. --Alabamaboy 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He's had his second chance, he blew it. I see no reason to give him a third chance. Even if he's only editing the Cherokee articles he's still more than likely to be disruptive in the process. --Tango 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blocking as stated above. Also protecting his talk page to avoid future disruptions. Its clear this user won't changed and has already caused problems with one user. T_{Talk to me} 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a really nice thing if somebody from the Foundation would either verify or deny his claims of $10M in contributions. Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Would we unblock him if he donated that much? Can someone buy unblocks now? --Golbez 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, and sorry if I didn't make that clear. It would be nice to get a final yea or nay on his claim. If it's a nay, then it's been a lie all the time, if it's a yea, it's still just a "so what?" Corvus cornix 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a donations listing page... I know I found my name on there when I made my donation (back during the last donation drive). I agree that it's a moot point, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Jeffrey's response to this thread [68], SqueakBox 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the first additional response is "leaving aside the fact that I am a MAJOR contributor" and then the next is basically "Now let me tell you as a contributor.." - he's still trying a hold-up. --Fredrick day 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. He's an anonymous contributor. Corvus cornix 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion in his response. From my observations, which I admit are limited compared to most others, the problem wasn't that he was a good editor who received bad feedback after making claims about his donations. The problem was that he tried to justify disruptive edits with the fact that he made donations. Taking away his donations doesn't solve everything, because he still doesn't seem to be admitting that any of his edits were disruptive. Yes, there are trolls here that should be banned as soon as we can find them because their only purpose on Wikipedia is to harass him. No, their harassing behavior does not justify much of his behavior. alanyst's request may seem somewhat extreme, but other than the point about being banned immediately, they are all standards which should be met by every editor. --OnoremDil 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for blocking is the likelihood, based on past experience, of continuing disruption. I see two arguments for unblocking: first, organized harassment should not be allowed to be a factor in driving anyone from the project; second, if his work is likely to improve the encyclopedia, then it's better to have him editing than not. Ignoring all the stuff that has little to do with the project, he says he wants to edit articles in an area I know nothing about, and that he will follow policy while he does it. If others who do know about native American history support unblocking him, I would not object. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he also says he refuses to be limited as to what and how he edits. Corvus cornix 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please leave this alone for now. I am talking to Mr. Merkey and to others. These debates add fuel to the flames, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Any editors who want to know about donations should go to foundation:Benefactors and read for themselves, rather than speculating. Uncle G 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The advice to avoid speculation is sound. It is not that simple. And while we're on the subject, let's not follow ED down the "we need more IRL moneys NOW!" route, get those PayPal accounts buzzing :-) Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RyanRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to nominate a blocked user (joke? sockpuppet?) (RfA Page). I wasn't sure if I should've posted this in (WP:BN), but AN/I seemed suitable. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted, and RyanRocks blocked as a sock of the indefblocked user he was trying to nominate. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another half dozen socks fell out the washing machine too. Nick 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above Endroit mentioned the recent RFCU which confirmed User:Davidpdx as a puppetmaster and was discussing additional possibilities for checkuser at the vote. I presume that the puppets will be blocked, but wonder if there should also be some action against the puppetmaster in this case. In additional to vote fraud (with his socks) he attempted a disruption of the RM poll by canvassing literally millions of people by writing an article for a major Korean newspaper which concluded with a sentence about how to vote in the poll, picked up later by major Korean portals and Yahoo news Korea. The talk page itself required semi-protection, required a great deal of clean-up effort, and turned the already controversial proposal into a downright mess.

We know this user is the one who made the article because he created a sock with the name of the article author before the news went to print and voted again in the poll. There are few worse examples typifying disruption on Wikipedia.

If someone feels this is too similar to Endroit's post on the subject delete or merge it; it seems Endroit is asking for discussion on checking the users in the poll (as well as blocking Davidpdx's socks). My question is about Davidpdx himself, and is specifically about not only the violation of sockpuppetry but advertising to/canvassing a nation of people. --Cheers, Komdori 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Komdori describes a very serious incident and I humbly ask that administrators take strong action here. If this is true, it is clearly a serious situation when a professional journalist posing as a Wikipedia editor engages in such malfeasance. Mumun 無文 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the checkuser. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Davidpdx is now unlikely instead of confirmed, this problem largely goes away (although that is some extreme incivility when you tell editors "you will pay for this" and "I you to hang", I guess having been found guilty by checkuser when you're not might prompt some to being upset). It might be worth permanently blocking Lions3639 since they obviously are solely a bad faith editor (one edit, that was to kick off the disruption). --Cheers, Komdori 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Danny Daniel. See the edits made by this user on Secret Squirrel. He/she provides two links to deleted hoaxes created by previous Danny Daniel socks. Also see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this sockpuppet was created less than ten minutes ago. Pants^(T) 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an IP vandal who continually links appendicitis to abortion, changes the date of Barrymore's birth, adds nonsense links, and removes the "see also" tag pointing to John Barrymore Jr. at the top. Could an admin please semi-protect the page? It's been going on for a long time, and now it's at four or five reverts today. --David Shankbone 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it doesn't look that bad so it probably won't get protected. -- John Reaves (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in this content dispute, so I shouldn't use any admin tools myself, but...

Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is a long-term editor in apparent good standing has decided for no apparent good reason to ignore discussion or consensus building after I objected to and reverted pending discussion some merges he BOLDly made. He has now reverted the merges back in 3 times on each of two pages: [69] on Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), [70] on Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), and twice [71] on Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean). I believe that multiply reverting to an un-discussed merge and refusing to discuss it in favor of just redoing it is disruption, and it's clearly in violation of WP:MERGE ("Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages.").

I would violate 3RR to revert anymore and I shouldn't make admin decisions regarding someone I'm in a disagreement with. I would like to request uninvolved admin attention... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm perfectly happy for there to be a merge proposal and discussion, and if I wasn't at 3RR I'd put the articles back with mergeto tags as appropriate, etc. (I probably should have earlier) But that's a grey area when treading on the edge of 3RR, so I would rather someone else review and do so if you feel it's appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified Mr. Apostrophe of his involvement in this incident board. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, good. I should'a done that. My bad. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the pages being reverted because there was no discussion or because people disagree with the information being merged? If it's the latter, that seems fine; a discussion should happen. But if you're just reverting just "because there was no discussion", that makes little sense. It's doing no more than forcing unneeded discussion. TTN 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I don't get it - the only reason for opposing the merge is due to it being an "undiscussed merge". That's not exactly compelling. --Haemo 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it clear to Apostrophe that I object to the merge; I'm happy for a discussion to conclude to merge anyways, but I'm not ok with him just merging over my objections and requests to discuss it. I'm not wonking this insisting that he just discuss it to check some boxes on a form somewhere that procedure was followed; if there was no objection, WP:BOLD would be fine here as elsewhere, but that has to give way to process when there are objections. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really doesn't look that way. It just seems that the whole thing is based upon if discussions always are required on "controversial" mergers or not. I see no comments like "the information is important" or "it can be brought up to standards." The merger isn't automatically controversial with just "discussion is required" messages because they're often just used to stall or wikilawyer. I'm sorry if I missed a comment that did express actual desire to keep them. TTN 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This got somewhat legalistic sort of quickly because he initially didn't even believe we had a merge process documented anywhere. If in that discussion I didn't clearly enough communicate that yes, I object to the actual changes, then let me do so here and now. No, I don't want articles redirected; I believe the merges are bad for the Encyclopedia. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You received uninvolved administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined. However, it isn't an answer that you liked. The issue got legalistic because you were wikilawyering, not Apostrophe. You've abused the vandalism rollback tool several times in an edit war; you have threatened to abuse more administrator tools; and your logic here is entirely circular. This is explained in detail at the aforementioned noticeboard section. Uncle G 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There appears to be a pattern of people focusing on the wikilawyer issues, which the argument with Apostrophe clearly degenerated into. However, as I have said, and will say again: Yes, I do have a content dispute with doing the merges. Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. If I have not effectively communicated all of this then that's my fault, but the situation remains that he's trying to bulldoze merges through against opposition without discussion. Even if there wasn't a policy document on the subject, that's against other general policy.

  I have not intended to abusively rollback, and wasn't aware that I'd used it more than the one goof I knew of last night. If anyone wants to pursue the issue feel free to; the record is whatever it is. I don't think rollback versus undo makes any difference to the end result on those edits.

  It's apparent that there have been communications breakdowns in this, in addition to the root problem. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. — You opposed solely on the grounds that he didn't follow process (same diffs as before) and created a wholly Kafkaesque set of hoops for an editor to jump through for no real reason.

    Apostrophe performs a bold merger. You state that you are reverting because xe hasn't followed procedure, and revert. Xe asks that you do not revert simply because some process hasn't been followed and reverts. You point to WP:MERGE and revert again. Xe points out that you weren't actually supported by what you are pointing to, and reverts.

    Characterizing this as Apostrophe trying to bulldoze things through without discussion, when xe plainly has discussed this with you, on your talk page, is wrong. The problem here is not xem. You've been beating Apostrophe over the head with rules, yet you have still to articulate any concrete objection to the merger, in the several places that you've now discussed this, apart from the fact that it didn't follow a process that it isn't required to follow. Your circular logic continues to be that the merger must be discussed because it was objected to, it was objected to solely because it didn't follow a process, and it didn't follow a process because it wasn't discussed. Uncle G 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did not oppose soley on the grounds that s/he isn't following process. I oppose because the merges are bad, taking large contentful referenced pages on a topic of high interest and turning them into small unreferenced uninteresting sections in a collection page. The articles were not stubs, were not bad articles, and should not be merged. The whole policy thing has become a red herring. It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy, put Merge tags on the articles and discuss on the talk pages as they are required to do if they want to push a merge against opposition. But I am not opposing because the policy was not being followed. I understand that I may not have communicated that effectively last night. I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. If it was unclear previously it should have been clear since then. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy — Once again: Apostrophe was not disruptive, and was not "refusing to follow the policy". Your continued mis-characterization of the other editor in your dispute, over and over again here, is part of the problem. And yes, you were objecting solely because the process was not followed. You said exactly that, several times over.

        And I see that you are still, despite what we've told you here, mis-characterizing this as Apostrophe not discussing this, when (see diffs above) xe did discuss this with you, on your talk page, explaining why you are wrong — the very same explanation that you've had here from me and others. If the "policy thing" is a red herring, it is one that is entirely of your own making, when you resorted to wikilawyering. Yet, despite your assertion that it is a red herring, you are still beating the editor over the head with assertions of "improper process" and failure to follow policy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it here. You don't get to claim that it's a red herring that is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst you are still using it as a club to beat the editor with. Please stop beating the editor over the head. Xe isn't the one who is in the wrong here. The person who needs to knock things off is you.

        I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. — Because they aren't clear statements of a concrete objection. You simply said that you objected to the merger, because it was "bad", as if that were enough. We already knew that you objected, and that the reason that you thought that it was "bad" was because xe, in your own words, "merged a bunch of POTC ship articles in to a single "minor characters" article without any discussion on the article talk pages". Saying "I object because the merges are bad" does not magically turn your prior objection into a concrete one. It doesn't clarify a thing. What you have just written is the first time in any discussion, on your talk page, on Apostrophe's talk page, on either of the places on the Administrators' noticeboard that you've brought this up, and on the talk page of WP:MERGE, that you have actually articulated anything like a concrete objection.

        As for your objection, quite what makes you think that Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), an article with zero citations and that had been marked as lacking cited sources since April 2007, is "referenced", or that the "large" articles were turned into "small" sections, when List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean#Endeavour is word-for-word identical with the prior content of the merged article and contains everything that the article did (and even a few things extra), is mystifying. Uncle G 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Endeavour is the weakest of the articles, arguably. The strongest that s/he zapped was Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean), which is a much bigger and better article, and is also the one that another editor has undone the last redirect on. If you think that the weaker ones should get merged, then argue it on the talk pages. When Apostrophe merged the Interceptor article, less than half the content ended up on the merged article [72]. This is the strongest case for not merging. I objected to the whole series of merges, but perhaps some will stand up on community review. Cherry-picking the weakest of the merges objected to, as opposed to reviewing all of them and noting which one someone else had also reverted and restored, is not being helpful.
        • In circular logic, what goes around comes around. Your own arguments turned circular a while ago. I've been attempting to clarify that I have content objections to the merges, and separate policy objections to the procedure followed in response to those objections. Whether I communicated well last night / this morning or not, I think that the cards have all been on the table for some time. It is factually true that I object to the content of the merges - the Interceptor article at least should be separate, and probably the others, from a content point of view. It is factually true that WP:MERGE says that if a merge is opposed, the merge proposer is to place the tags and talk about it on the talk pages. It is factually true that Apostrophe refused to believe that there was a WP:MERGE policy when initially confronted, re-merged several times after objectiosn and reverts, and has not placed merge proposal tags on articles or started discussions on article talk pages.
        • Regardless of earlier communications difficulties, which may well be my fault, Apostrophe has not followed policies s/he is now aware of, regarding objections s/he is now aware of. Assuming good faith, the communications failure earlier can explain their initial actions. They have not fixed what they did, however. Per policy, the burden of initiating merge discussions was theirs, and they didn't do that to date.
        • Another editor has un-merged the Interceptor article. Tomorrow midday, I am going to unmerge the other two if Apostrophe or someone else doesn't first, apply the MERGETO / MERGEFROM tags as appropriate, and initiate talk page discussions. I have no objection to anyone else going first; I'm going to wait well past 24 hrs from the start of all this to avoid 3RR technical objections if I have to be the one to do it. The community can consensus on whatever result it ends up with on the article talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uncle G has it right. There is no such thing as a "merge out of process". I would suggest you take a step down from this bureaucratic approach. >Radiant< 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone investigate Belazzur (talk · contribs) for me please?? - his contributions appear to be a bit worrying - he's done cut-and-paste moves, and inappropriately used {{article probation}} as well. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, he's come in on a couple of open proxies, which I've blocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philip Baird Shearer is reverting my edits - data analysis (personal & statistical) on Dokdo supporters, whom the opposing parties have accused of meat puppetry based on an outside Korean portal that encouraged their fellow netizens to participate in the new move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. Especially when all voters that were deemed as invalid were categorized as invalid voters, I see this accusation as groundless & especially racist as it is aimed at a nationality, not an individual. Therefore, at the closing admin User:Husond's recommendation, ("I doubt that the article will be moved back, but feel free to present information about meat/sockpuppeting on the Liancourt Rocks side.") I proceeded to gather both personal and statistical data analysis on the Dokdo supporters to disprove the accusation of organized meat puppetry. However User:Philip Baird Shearer reverted them, threatening and thus declaring revert war, "If you copy large chunks of the old debate onto the current talk page I will delete it again." I decided not to escalate the sitaution into 3RR's but decided to come to you fellow admins for help. (Wikimachine 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand the "racist" accusation? By the way, I didn't realize you were an admin, are you? —LactoseTI^T 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Is this only for admins? (Wikimachine 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, it isn't, it's for anyone to post something related to an incident, for admins to see and respond to. Admins and non-admins are welcome to open incidents. Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered, too, when you said you decided to "come to you fellow admins." --Cheers, Komdori 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, I've been asked by Phil to leave a note here about Matthew who in addition to the above concerns, has now been found to be using an unapproved bot on his main account, editing at speeds in excess of 10 edits per minute. The block is for 24 hours. Hope this is acceptable to all. I must point out I've not looked into why/what Matthew was actually editing, I'm simply reporting the block. Nick 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering about that. I had meant to ask why his edits were coming in so fast in those long runs. Perhaps it will scale the problem back a bit if he has to go on foot. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He told me about the bot beforehand on MSN, but only that it was a regex bot, written in Perl. He did explain the edits (User:Matthew/tv.com), though, but I think it was foolish running an unapproved bot. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unapproved bot, and it was running on his main account instead of a bot account. The edit summaries didn't even note it was a bot. It was very, very bad bot usage, and something that required immediate action as the bot was still running. Phil Sandifer 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to be accurate, it seems the bot finished about 9 minutes before Matthew was blocked, not that it really matters. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I note he has been unblocked already, and he has told me he will not be botting again soon and will seek BAG approval first. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darylxu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just made this rather offensive attack on another editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefblocked. Nothing but vanity pages / vandalism and now particularly nasty personal attacks. - Alison ☺ 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please move Times, The back to The Times (band) - User:Edwardball has moved it with the comment "easier to find". If you have suspicious minds, you might also want to take a close look at User:Edwardball, User:Emily Boythorn and User:Poppy Lydon, which were all registered simultaneously and have been carrying out tag-team editing on Ed Ball (musician) and the two bands Ball played in, The Times and O' Level (and nothing else). Obviously I always WP:AGF so won't use the "S" word. Yet. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Note: no talk page :/ - Alison ☺ 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! (hangs head in shame) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I please request a rollback on Tchoukball? I'll start by hand, but I doubt I'll finish in time. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had to be done by hand... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rert2 is a single purpose account (See: contributions) he disrupts any discussions at the Talk:Audio_mastering by attacking me personally. He continues to place an external link to an Amazon.com book, written by a mastering engineer on the subject of mastering. (See: [73][74][75][76] disregarding the fact that there is a template at the talk page that urges all editors to discuss any proposed external links or additions to the present article. In the past, such type of links have been dismissed as inappropriate, per WP Links normally to be avoided. First of all, his personal attacks have been unwarranted (See: [77][78][79] Here, he claims that I call myself a "spammer" [80][81] [82] and he had been warned 4 times to stop (See: [83][84][85][86]) In addition, another user who goes under "VinylJoe" seems to be in connection or in agreement with rert2 and without further discussions. (See [contributions]. This raises the possibility that Rert2 maybe using sock puppetry to get a greater consensus for the inclusion of said inappropriate external link. I hope you can help stop this disrupting and bad faith user. Thank you. Jrod2 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have looked through all the links that you provided shows that disruptive editing by Rert2. but I think that he might have made numerous sockpuppets to disrupt the wikipedia. Daniel 5127 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Kellz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Martonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor who was blocked as the result of this ANI report appears to have created a new account, User:T-Kellz. The editing pattern of the user remains the same: he attempts to insert the name "Travis Kellman" (and variations)[87] into various articles on boy bands and rap groups, presumably with the aim of self-promotion, and to create hoax articles about himself (see also High School Musical Cast). In this diff he has again inserted the name "Travis Kellman" and accompanied it with a nickname, "Martonte," which is the username of his blocked account. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BJAODN Deleted] —Kurykh 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I started this thread here first, but I won't object to going there. Corvus cornix 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Notsharon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account hasn't had a full set of warnings so there's no point posting it on AIV, but it's an account user by a vandal who has targeted the Craig Charles article since July 2006 using IPs registered to Flinders University or 58.84 prefixed IPs and repeatedly inserted libellous allegations. The latest vandalism was to move the article to Famous Rapists. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. While not a vandalism-only account, [88] and [89] make this user's intent clear. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man I have no idea what's going on. Over the past half hour I've been trying to make totally constructive eedits to pro wrestling articles and I'm being bombarded by nasty messages from various people. This is so crazy. They're accusing me of vandalism and stuff. Please someone be of assistance, this is insane. - Radarman1

Please block this self admitted JB196 sockpuppet, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why everyone is calling you a banned JB196 sockpuppet. I truly can not find any reason. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. He's gearing up for tommorrow when his favorite target articles are unprotected (Hopefully if he starts, they can be quickly reprotected) we have a RfCU in to block the open proxy undernetath. SirFozzie 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see he's finally blocked, been reverting his edits like crazy, hehe. well, I hope he don't come back Momusufan 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xcv47x is making questionable edits to celebrity and pop culture articles such as Kelly Clarkson, including inserting images of dubious copyright status (which he's uploading to Commons without a license statement, and seem to come from websites). *Dan T.* 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's also blanking his talk page to remove warnings. *Dan T.* 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to visit ANI prior to pursuing dispute resolution, but now think it might be a good idea, and I look forward to any advice people can offer here, prior to dispute resolution.

I was recently blocked by Bishonen (an administrator), after she accused me of harassment and gave me a block warning.[90] [91] Allegedly, I was harassing another administrator, KillerChihuahua ("KC"). The incident I am reporting here is action by Bishonen, and not action by KillerChihuahua; KillerChihuahua did not make the accusation of harassment, and did not give me a block warning.

The unblock request, which is here, was denied not because of harassment, but rather "for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I disagreed with that unblock decision (because I had already promised to disengage from KillerChihuahua before the block), but this ANI incident report is not about the block or the unblock request. This incident report is mainly about Bishonen's preceding accusation of harassment. I deny the harassment accusation, and want it resolved. Unfortunately, the background is a bit complicated, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. This whole controversy began regarding an organization called the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). On May 23, an editor who I do not know (and never communicated with) wrote in Wikipedia's fetal pain article that RCOG is "pro-choice".[92] Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag.[93] I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially).[94] KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice."[95] Also in the discussion thread at fetal pain, KC said:

So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion.[97] [98] [99] Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue.

So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'"[100] Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera.[101] I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to KC's talk page, where I asked her to assume good faith.[102] Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.[103]

Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than here where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'"[104] KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs.[105] And she said: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was obviously incorrect, because KC had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."[106] I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again," and my edit summary said "let us not engage in smear jobs."

At this point, Bishonen jumped in.[107] KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. After the harassment accusation, I left a message at Bishonen's talk page saying I thought that KC was the one being malicious here.[108]

So those are the basic facts. I will not describe here the subsequent block; that block was upheld on other grounds which I find very unpersuausive, but that is a somewhat separate matter from the harassment accusation. I very much believe that I was not harassing anyone, and therefore the harassment accusation was false. Do you agree or disagree? What sort of dispute resolution would you recommend? Bishonen has already rejected mediation.[109] I feel very strongly that the harassment allegation was unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)

Some kind of mediation is needed. In the UK the term "pro choice" is loaded, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry about RCOG, which is a medical body. You've said lots of stuff about RCOG which doesn't agree with their webpage. One example would be about membership -- they've been very clear about who can be a member, and what type of member they can be, and what the requirments for that type of membership are. The term "Pro choice" does nothing to add any useful content to the article. Why is it there? It's obvious that a group of obgyns will include many people who do not disagree with abortion. Allow the term "pro choice" to be taken out, find a suitable alternative, and let people make up their own minds. Dan Beale 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this specific point, I'd agree with that - "pro choice" is an american term and is biased towards american thinking and it's use would indicated an unbalanced articel as it tries to impose an americian context on external agencies, social and political systems such as the RCOG. --Fredrick day 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I appreciate your comment, but this Incident Report is not about whether the word "pro-choice" should be taken out or not. You say,"Allow the term 'pro choice' to be taken out." It already has been taken out. Whether it should be reinserted is a different question. The question here is: is Bishonen correct that I harassed KC?Ferrylodge 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I appreciate the info about the use of the term "pro-choice" in England, I really do. But no one made that point during the controversy at issue. You may be right, and I would be interested in looking into the different usages of the word "pro-choice" in the UK versus the US, but that is just not relevant to whether I harassed KC. And, Dan, every fact I stated about RCOG was fully cited by references and footnotes at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article; if you think there are mistakes in the RCOG article, please point them out at the RCOG article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the accusation of "harassment" is correct. You posted controversial material on a page against concensus, you then travelled to another page to make a similar point, you then posted on a talk page, and then you posted after reading this -"Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" message. In my opinion it'd be interesting to see an RfC. Dan Beale 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, your edit summary says that you think the harassment was perhaps "mild." I don't think there is such a thing. It's kind of like saying a "genial" case of murder. If it weren't a very serious charge, I wouldn't be here discussing it.

Anyway, I don't think you've correctly described what happened. I added a LOT of info about RCOG at the RCOG article, in addition to info about their abortion stance. The diffs are in my initial post above. A fetal pain article was not the appropriate place to get into such detail about RCOG. Moreover, when I was at the fetal pain article and decided to get the RCOG article involved, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.[110] [111]

Instead of focusing on various other edits, please focus on the edit that prompted this whole thing. This edit was not against consensus, because this edit had never before been made at any article; there were not even any comments at the RCOG talk page when I made this edit to the RCOG article.

Anyway, regarding an RfC, the guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible, unless someone volunteers to join me. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to endorse the complaint; i.e. to agree that it has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC, even though this whole thing is extremely time-consuming and costly for me.Ferrylodge 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's have some definitions. From Wikipedia:Harassment, harassment is defined as "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Is the second part of that the problem here? No views as yet either way, I'm just providing the definition of what is not allowed. Moreschi ^Talk 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi. The second diff in my initial post here indicates that Bishonen was particularly accusing me of "user space harassment." Here's the definition, in case it might be helpful:

Incidentally, I also quoted this definition in my unblock request.Ferrylodge 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Would someone please help me with an RfC? The guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to agree that the RfC has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC.Ferrylodge 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ferrylodge is stating his block was unfair, as he'd only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on my talk page. He is leaving out a few details. After I said "I'm done", Ferrylodge posted twice morestill arguing the RCOG edit and accusing me of disruptive editing. Bishonen posted her "that's enough" message[112], then Ferrylodge posted "I most certainly am done here"[113], then linked it to another post he'd made on Bishonen's page, where he stated "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring". I removed that, as it constituted a back-door method of getting one last attack against me on my talk page, and he replaced the content, expanding slightly, but not the link. This constitutes edit warring on my talk page, to the tune of five edits, including a link to an attack and reverting me on my talk page, after being told the conversation was over. Oddly enough, he has mistaken five for once before, see my talk page for details (see the part of the section User talk:KillerChihuahua#Please Assume Good Faith concerning the diffs he'd asked for.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if KillerChihuahua would please use quotes instead of misdescribing what she thinks I stated. I never said that I only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on your talk page, KC. So, please don’t claim otherwise. What you say is false.

My initial post above focuses on what happened up until the harassment charge and block warning. For details about what happened after the harassment charge and block warning, people can see my unblock request, to which I linked in my initial post above. The issue here is whether the harassment accusation (accompanying the block warning) was appropriate, not whether the block was appropriate (I don’t think it was, but that matter is distinctly dealt with in my unblock request).