Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517

Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip

Resolved

...as much as it will be here. Until there's evidence of policy violation with consensus supporting the policy violations, there's nothing here not but You Said, No You Said, I Didn't Say, Spammer, No u, No U, and so on. This should go to RFC, linking back to this when it archives. rootology (C)(T) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:TIME Magazine September 17 1951 cover.jpg

Is this the beginning of WikiWar III, or is it simply an indication of more senseless drama? Stay tuned!

The user Ikip is currently on a mass canvassing spree of the article rescue squadron. He has tagged dozens hundreds of user talk pages with an invitation to join the group. I messaged him about it before but he promptly reverted my edit without explanation. When pressed further, he engaged me in a discussion on my talk page. Just a few minutes ago he started again and I left another message on his talk page. ~50 invites later (which happened in the course of less than 10 minutes) I sent him another message. Clearly he is ignoring me so I'm coming here to report it. I'm not sure if this is the right place, so I apologize if this post is off-board.

Ikip has a clear battleground mentality here, and the ARS is often thought of as an inclusionist partisan organization. Ikip is sending out invites to the ARS to what appears to be everybody with a template identifying themselves as an inclusionist. This is clearly gaming the system in an attempt to flag down more "keep" votes to the articles that the ARS tags as being in need of "rescue". Besides being on a massive scale, his postings are biased (only "inclusionist" users get the message), and they clearly are meant as an attempt at vote-stacking. This behaviour violates nearly all of WP:CANVASS.

A sample edit of what he has been doing is here. Here's another. Themfromspace (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should stop and address this here. I will write a message -- Samir 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ARS used to be non "partisan." Just noting that it wasn't always to blatantly slanted. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and troubled by this, and I'd rather see a decrease in the partisanship than anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was slanted when I added a Userbox for it ages ago. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 06:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note, Ikip just declined our conversation. Something must said to him before he continues tomorrow. This has gone on for several days now in hour long bursts. And no, in theory the ARS isn't biased, but just look at what happens when an article gets tagged for rescue: the same few people jump in and invariably vote to "keep" the article. In practise it's very slanted. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what harm there is. I didn't even know about this organization until he stuck it on my talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The harm is that he's gaming the system. By sending the template only to users with the "inclusionist" template on their page, his posts are biased. Also they are mass-scale, and can be seen to be used to influence AfD debates since ARS is structured around those debates. Themfromspace (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace, I am sure that you are only concerned about the project, and this has nothing to do with your userbox on your user page, err i mean views of wikipedia.

Please note that A Man In Black, like Themfromspace and LeaveSleaves, have polar opposite views than I do. A Man In Black and I frequent the same policy pages.

I have gotten nothing but positive responses from the editors that I have posted this invitation on. I love WP:ARS because we save articles by adding references, making wikipedia a better stronger encyclopedia. For example, I found and added 8 great references to Ndaba kaMageba and asked the nominator to close the AfD nomination today.

Ikip (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want WP:ARS to turn into Inclusion Squad Hyper Team Go. I want it to be the project that saves articles by referencing them. That's a Good Thing, and it's been a Good Thing ever since I praised ARS at its first MFD. Why are you spamming inclusionists only, when that's going to overwhelm any neutrality the project ever had? Why are you spamming anyone at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it is "spamming"? Is posting Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is canvassing? How about the other 260 templates that everyone here is ignoring? See the policy discussion about what is and what is not canvassing below.

Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam post their tag to those editors who remove linkspam from Wikipedia?

Lets be honest A man in black, you vote mostly delete on the AfD circuit, I don't. I have never seen you improve an article when it is in AfD. I am sure you have done it, but I have never seen it. So your praise of ARS seems a little bit...you fill in the blank.Ikip (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That project is not politically controversial, and nobody has used it to advertise for political partisans. I have difficulty believing your intentions weren't political when your response to any criticism of your conduct is to accuse your critics of opposing your politics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As another note (mostly to themfromspace), it is entirely legitimate for a user to remove messages without comment from their talk page. It may seem brusque or uncivil, but it is within his rights to do so and we shouldn't use his lack of a response to the original message as a hint of malign intent. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out a previous instance of such postings by Ikip. During the RfC at WP:FICTION, Ikip posted a number of messages on various talk pages of articles related to fiction. My request to stop did not deter him/her from continuing. ^LeaveSleaves 07:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, you forgot to mention that the neutral message was okayed with two administrators before it went out, and that it was only posted on episode and character pages, no user talk page. Pages I might add which were going to be dramatically affected by WP:FICT. You also forgot to mention that you have polar opposite POV than I do on WP:FICT, and that you have been actively digging through my edits for dirt, and you attempted to get me in trouble not three days ago here. Ikip (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, for some reason, you are conflating LeaveSleaves and Flatscan. While we both approached you regarding the WP:FICT notices, we are distinct editors. My concern was not the wording of your notice, but the number of article Talk pages on which you posted it: around 165 notices when I counted, and more later, stopping just before Kww threatened to report you on AN/I. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As Flatscan pointed out Ikip, we are distinct editors. I have very limited involvement at WP:FICT. In fact, I did not even participate in the said RfC. My concern was with the speed and number of posts you were making on article talk pages. Unfortunately you did no deem it necessary to respond to my concern. My interaction with you is limited to that single message I posted on your talk page, until now. I have no interest in "digging through [your] edits for dirt". ^LeaveSleaves 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I gladly joined his group, and I'm looking forward to working with it. I don't see what rule he violated by sending me an invitation. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for turning the argument directly against me. The problem here isn't the templates themselves but how they are used. I have never once used the template you associate me with. You have used yours on a massive scale. Not only that, but an incredibly partisan scale. Wikiproject spam isn't partisan at all and gets next to no opposition from the Wikipedia community while the ARS has been subject to deletion discussions several times. You have an agenda behind your postings, thats what makes it canvassing. Themfromspace (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I'm sure inviting indef blocked users to join the cause really helps</sarcasm> --Versageek 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed, please let me know if there are any other cases. Ikip (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly don't understand the need for this page to begin with. After all, the obvious places to go for expertise and/or input regarding articles on obscure and/or specialised subjects in need of expert help to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia standards should the boards of Wikiprojects which are directly related to the subject matter. From the looks of that page, it might be better re-titled the 'Every Sperm is Sacred Article Vote-Stacking Squadron'. And with the blatant canvassing, even more so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's unfair and a violation of WP:AGF. I have no particular association with the Article Rescue Squadron, but I've seen a few AfD's in which they've tagged an article for rescue; most recently, Perley G. Nutting. I don't recall ever seeing a problem with vote stacking in such a case (and may I remind you, AfDs are not votes); what I have seen is improvement to the article under discussion, from a point where it looked plausibly speediable to a point where it was obvious that it should be kept. I think such efforts should be greatly encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's perfectly fair and an observation of actual behaviour. The reaction to criticism and personal opinion, by the way, ought not be the knee-jerk misapplying of initialisms like WP:AGF to stifle view-points you don't like. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It's possibly an observation of a tiny minority of editors' actual behaviours. But it's far from the purpose of Article Rescue. One of the fundamental principles underlying article rescue is that if one doesn't edit the article to make it better, one isn't actually rescuing it. One is simply being an AFD discussion participant. Article rescue is article work, and it doesn't require discussion participation, especially if multiple rescuers are collaborating. I've rescued several articles without making any contribution to the AFD discussion other than a horizontal rule to show where in the timeline of the discussion I Kerrrzappp!ed the article. Indeed, at NEAT chipset (AfD discussion) I rescued an article with no edits to the discussion at all.

        Article rescue isn't an "-ism" of any flavour except "encyclopaedism". (On a side note I observe, again, that I've never seen a use of "deletionist" or "inclusionist" that wasn't involved in calling other editors names.) One rescues what can be rescued, at times taking joy in the amazement of others at what turns out to be possible. If the actions of one editor, or a group of editors, turns Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron into a ballot-stuffing mob, intent on flash-crowding AFD discussions and doing no article work at all, as existed (much to the detriment both of Wikipedia and its community) in years gone by with a few subjects before we settled down with reasonable ideas about notability, that doesn't mean that article rescue is the problem. It means that those editors will have ceased to be article rescuers, and the instigators of that change will have not served the encyclopaedia, or AFD, well.

        I suggest that you don't observe the unrepresentative, albeit vocal, tiny minority of editors whose focus is to call other editors names with "-ism"s, and start observing the actual article rescues peformed by article rescuers, from Lampman's work at List of United States presidents by handedness (AfD discussion) to those listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Selected previous rescues. That is what article rescue is, any and all of the hot air from "-ism" name callers notwithstanding. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and WP:ARS advertising

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, as User:Neutralhomer suggested [1] where User:A Man In Black was ironically advertising this issue. Ikip (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly place my finger on why, but I'm troubled by Ikip (talk · contribs) advertising the Article Rescue Squadron project on dozens of talk pages of users who have inclusionist userboxes on their page. I don't want to turn this into a whole inclusionist/deletionist hairball, and I would appreciate it if people would stay away from "Inclusionism is okay, so this is okay" or "Inclusionism is bad, so this is bad." That said, I'm troubled by the warping affect on AFD.

The project maintains a widely-transcluded list of borderline AFDed articles. Unlike topical lists, there are no criteria for placement on that list other than a member of the project wanting the rest of the project to look at that article. This wouldn't bother me so much, except that "throw out the deletionist" rhetoric is common on the talk page, the project page links a variety of inclusionist essays prominently, and Ikip just advertised the project to everyone he could find that self-identifies as an inclusionist.

I brought up similar concerns at WT:Canvassing and the project's talk page, with little result and mostly unreassuring scorn from the same people doing the things that concern me. I'm not opposed to this project in theory, but I keep seeing signs of it turning into a partisan canvassing project. Could I get some input here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of swift input would be appreciated; Ikip has now tagged hundreds of talk pages in the last fifteen minutes or so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed another user has brought this very subject up on AN/I. You might want to combine the two posts on the high-traffic AN/I. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:39

This is ANI. Might want to fix your copy-and-paste. =P —kurykh 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:AN, and we can discuss this further at WP:ANI#Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I posted at the wrong place. Now I look like an idiot. —kurykh 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is this - "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." that is disturbing. If that was deleted, it might be acceptable along with all the other Project invitations. The bottom line is either we remove the project or we let them have a project invitation like other projects. I am in favour of not removing the project but hoping it will get more NPOV, so the invitation needs cleaning up. Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will happily remove it, if you wish. I added that line because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[2] I added that in the hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. ARS has the express purpose of improving articles - why is that bad? And who would you invite to join - expressed inclusionists; expressed deletionists; every possible editor? Obviously inclusionists might be more inclined to look at the project and decide to make significant contributions to poor articles. This is not a matter of winning the keep/delete !vote, it's about getting lots of quality articles. Any "canvassing" is not designed to achieve any result other than improvement. That's still a good thing, right? Franamax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not in what the ARS claims to be, but in what it is. Looking at the talk page, it's quite clear that whatever the initial goals were, this has become a "political" organisation. Posts such as this, this and this are what worry me. There's nothing wrong with editors having opinions, but a semi-offical (there's a link to their WP:RESCUE on the AFD page) club used to organise "pushes" is more worrying. yandman 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before with the ARS - it certainly does good work on rescuing some articles, but it wouldn't be helpful to have the situation recur where AfD-closing admins were having to discount reams of Keeps on AfDs of clearly non-notable articles because people had got over-enthusiastic. Black Kite 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting tht closing admins simply count votes abd discount the discussions? If An admin sees 5 unadorned or ILIKEIT keeps, and one cogent and well discussed reason for delete, whi is the admin going to pay attention to? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't happen, but yes it occasionally does. My point is more that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Black Kite 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, ARS specifically gets a wide berth because their goals are to save articles and their methods are to (ostensibly) improve the article rather than simply join the debate. When that second point ceases to be the case, we need to look at them just as hard as we would look at a "Deletion squadron", noting borderline AfDs which might benefit from some deletionist input. Protonk (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's ironic that Ikip is canvassing [3] [4] this very discussion to users who have given him positive feedback about his template, also labelling me a "deletionist" at the same time. Will the battle ever end? He is urging people to come here and voice their support. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those two users just joined ARS, I wanted to let them know about the wikidrama you are stoking, and that you were opposed to me letting them know about WP:ARS. I am adding perfectly permissible invitations to other editors talk pages, which have nothing to do with you, and you are causing massive wikidrama, and creating the WP:BATTLE. As I wrote on your talk page: "I am indifferent to what you do in your free time, including contacting deletionists" Ikip (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your words: ":Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your talk page, by a self proclaimed deletionist" I can't imagine that this was a productive post. What did you intent to accomplish with it? Protonk (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactored 2 minutes later: "Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your and other editor's talk page, by an editor who has the deletionist tag on his talk page" Let me repeat what I wrote above I wanted these two editors to know about the wikidrama that Themfromspace was stoking, and that he was opposed to letting them know about WP:ARS. I hope this clarified things. Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, I can't continue this discussion any more. Hopefully a consensus can be established as I sleep and hopefully it will determine what you are doing is wrong. I highly recommend people read over WP:CANVASS and see how it applies in this situation. These edits are biased, intended to stack AfDs, and done on a massive scale without regards for the individual editor the posts go out to (even indef blocked users are welcome!), except that they have to be "inclusionist" editors as "deletionist" editors are bad. Peace out. Themfromspace (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut and paste our discussion we had about this already:

WP:Canvassing first sentence: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."

Where is the community discussion? No community discussion, no canvassing.

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam members such as yourself not be allowed to post Template:WPSPAM-invite-n? Should the other 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates be deleted? Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're wading into wikilawyering territory, but here goes: I invite you to take a look at the note attached to that very sentence you quoted: "Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post." —kurykh 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: you're conflating three things: one being the existence of the invitation, second being the message contained in said invitation, and third being to whom the message is targeted. The first is not a problem, the second being the major issue here, and the third is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. —kurykh 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that getting people to join ARS is *not* about saving articles, although that might be a side-effect, it's to ensure that another people are standing by the next time they try and get notability deleted or marked as a failed essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly - I have always tried to AGF regarding this issue, but this by Ikip, linked above is troubling - " I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This isn't about rescuing possibly saveable articles, is it? Black Kite 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Also, this AfD for an article tagged with ARS is the type of thing I'm talking about. Look at all the Keeps with non-rationales, some from ARS members who haven't tried to fix the article at all (it's still completely unsourced). Then, compare the Keep from User:DGG, who as usual has it exactly correct. Black Kite 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a common sense approach be to establish the harm done, or harm to be done. This is a hugely constructive effort by Ikip, to organize people who would be willing to throw time into rescuing other people's work, because their work might be deleted by wikipedians, who argue for deletion because the article has some sort of problem, but will not spend time to fix the issues themselves. I'm asking: "what's the harm done?" by organizing people to fix endangered articles, so they conform to Wikipia's high standards. Alternatively, what is the harm done by stopping Ikip in fixing endangered articles. I see no attempt to influence AfD discussions here, this critique is ill conceived. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  The harm that was done was that a project that needs to walk a bit of political tightrope in order to do its work, work which is a net good for the wiki, was just advertised to hundreds of people who have self-declared their partisanship in that political circle. At best, this complicates focusing the project on article improvement and not politics. At worst, it marries tools that stand to do a great deal to overwhelm AFD with bloc action with self-declared political partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article is improved to meet concerns at an AfD, is wiki not itself improved? I'd hate to think anyone in this discussion will disagree. There are thousands of articles at AfD at any one time and only a handful of volunteers at ARS able to get to them in our continued efforts to improve wiki. And many of these require input from willing experts in certain fields. So... Ikip is asking help from editors in order to continue improving the project by improving articles. Would it have made any kind of sense to send a request to save artilces to anyone who do not show interest in improving other's articles? proudly displays a "deletionist" tag? All he saying is "want to help improve wiki?" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is arguing against your initial premise. More of a problem is the possibilities of AfD spamming (which has happened before) and the canvassing on policy issues. I'd also take issue with your last point - I probably veer towards the deletionist side on many issues, but I have fixed articles that I have seen at AfD plenty of times, which is why I think the "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" argument is one to avoid. I doubt if there are many "hardcore deletionists", or what would be the point in them being here? Black Kite 09:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Right. There are two steps here. One is arguing that ARS is becoming less and less about making substantive improvements to articles scheduled for deletion and more and more about organizing arguments against deletion. The second stems from the first. If we accept the first premise (we don't have to, but roll with it), then we have to treat much of the "communications" made by Ikip et al. as canvassing of some sort. Again, ARS gets treated differently from "inclusionist" or "deletionist" projects because their stated mission is avowedly non-partisan. Once the mission comes into question, that status has to be questioned as well. I mean, we can agree that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion and that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. Let's pretend that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion decided to have a central location where they could discuss AfD debates which were on the margin. Let's go further and say that once they did this, they determined that they didn't have enough people commenting, so they went out and found people who had "deletionist" userboxes or people who had voted to make WP:N policy and invited them to that discussion. Would we consider that somewhat untoward? Also, I should note that this isn't the first time a partisan slant has been added to ARS. Ikip previously attempted to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion with ARS and WICU, and was stopped only when Banjiboi and User:Realkyhick started an AN/I thread about it. In the ensuring drama, he accused reallyhick of being a radical deletionist, accused me of being a meatpuppet for a banned user and flared out. I see this as a somewhat more subtle continuation of that previous attempt. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempered that sentence. I have voted delete at many AfD's and only "keep" when I think there is a chance the article might meets standards. Do the deletes nake me a delitionists? Do the keeps make ne an inclusionist? Or is trying to do the best for the project just make me an "editor". Hmmm... okay. I gotta give Ikip credit for doing the utmost to bring fresh blood to the ARS... as we feel quite overwhelmed at times. His tag, if to ever be used again, might best be an invitaion that states "The ARS promotes a non-partisan efort to improve Wiki. If you'd like to join, leave the politics at the door." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Innoculating ARS against politics would be a Good Thing, although I think it'd need more than that if problems persist. I think ARS in concept and more or less in practice is the opposite of WP:POINT: improving the wiki to prove a point. Overt political efforts are a threat to the project, but not a problem of it unless they are tolerated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the problem is that you're not leaving politics at the door, Michael. How is this leaving politics at the door? "An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members....". How is this not vote shopping? Ikip's answer to the latter says it all: "not officially"... yandman 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as he's doing it manually and not by bot. I can certainly understand why you, A Man In Black, who is a deletionist, would be irritated by him mostly selecting inclusionists for his group. Let's just say that your complaints about this ring slightly hollow.

If you're worried about what direction the organization will take, join it yourself and keep an eye on it instead of trying to squelnch it. Jtrainor (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a preview of the response to any concerns that WP:ARS is becoming a partisan task force if this sort of advertising is allowed to continue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's pretty poor form. AMiB's complaints about this are pretty reasoned. If you want to accuse someone of playing politics, pick your targets better. Protonk (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is going off tangent now, and I don't see any reason for admin intervention at the moment. Should this thread me moved to WT:ARS or somewhere similar? Black Kite 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm encouraging people to join the Article Rescue Squadron if they are going to rescue articles by improving them; but I would be concerned that Ikip may be trying to convert the ARS to his own rather combative anti-AfD approach where nominators he disagrees with get intemperate attacks at AfD, and threats such as "If necessary, I can request to see the history of the other 15 articles you put up for deletion" so that he can decide whether they were "Abuse of the AfD process." JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Note: comments linked to above have since been refactored by Ikip. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

And restored per #Editing a closed AfD to refactor one's intemperate comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2)Please yandman, go to any policy page and you have a group of like minded editors who push there own agendas on how wikipedia should be. Don't hold WP:ARS to a standard that no other policy page or Wikigroup follows.

I suggest that this ANI be closed too. (refactored out) For once I agree with Black Kite, lets just close this topic.

(AKA User:inclusionist) Ikip (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ikip. Not useful. THIS is what ARS is about. The time we are spedning here... you included... is time better spent fixing what's broke instead of arguing about how it got broke. I'd rather fix the damn pipe that stand around complaining about having wet feet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 106 AfDs in over 2 years? I must be slipping. Note however that a number of those are procedural noms or moved across from PROD/CSDs that I wasn't sure about deleting (you'll find this with the stats for a lot of admins), so such figures can be misleading. Black Kite 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Only users I consider sufficiently inclusionist are allowed to criticize me" is a problematic attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...please add the edit diff on that quote. :) Ikip (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone who is criticizing is actually doing it because they don't like that I'm an inclusionist, whether they know it or not" isn't much better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit diff please?

As I mentioned below, yes AMIB, you are here to improve wikipedia and make the project better, we all are. As wikipedians, we leave all of our biases at the door, and we change into enyclopedist outfits, ready to make the project a better place. We are always fair and unbiased in our judgements as enyclopedists. Ikip (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come now, look at the header of this section. It clearly says that AMIB isn't sure something is actually wrong here, but feels bad about it and wants something done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The edits that JohnCD has linked to are very worrying. I would suggest renaming the page to something a little less "The Incredibles" and simply not allowing canvassing/spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for input because I am uncomfortable acting because I don't know what to do and feel any action I take could be mistaken for partisan action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes dear Jtrainor, AMIB, like everyone here, only wants the best for wikipedia and the project. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, nothing to see here and is starting to get heated. Tea for all, fifteen minutes for the brass band to play and then lets get back to improving the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Edit I just performed: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#Code_of_conduct. Not too bold. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#So the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists? was already there, on the main page, notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having that statement about inclusionists/deletionists on the ARS template has a very unfortunate connotation, as you can see if you try substituting other words: what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily white people, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." or what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily Hindus, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." - do you see the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?

Let me ask this simple: Where is the need for admin intervention in this? The thread starter claims, he does not want another inclusionist-deletionist discussion but that is exactly what happened. What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote. If the keep-arguments are weaker than the delete ones, then it does not matter how many of them there are.
So, if ikip wants more people to join ARS, who cares? It's not canvassing because all he says is "come and help improving articles". Everything else is pure interpretation of his motives and, as I outlines above, not really a problem. I wish we could avoid such unneeded discussions here. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip was spamming hundreds of talk pages, and by all indications intends to resume doing so tomorrow. If his message or intent is problematic and he doesn't desist, that is an issue that requires admin intervention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• He has desisted for the moment. If he starts again, then I would suggest starting a new thread at ANI, with a link to this one. I don't believe advertising the ARS to sympathetic users is problematic; wikilawyering or focusing the ARS on politics would be. Black Kite 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  And if he advertises to 400 more users then stops, will we simply say, "Well, what do you want us to do now?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I doubt if there are many more users with inclusionist userboxes that he hasn't contacted. If he expands that canvassing to other users, then that clearly fails WP:CANVASS. At the moment, I am wary of characterising this as disruption. If those who join up with ARS fail to follow its guidelines and are disruptive, though, that is a separate matter. Black Kite 10:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, leaving your personal views aside, how exactly is he breaking Wikipedia policies by doing so? Hundreds of Wikiprojects do the same to get interested people to join them, it was never considered canvassing before. Posting neutrally worded invites to editors has been found acceptable even when done on a larger scale, as long as there is no intent to sway people to a certain position / point of view. That position may exist if one makes the connection ARS => inclusionist "cabal" => mass-keep-!voting on AFDs but that connection is not in the message and thus we cannot say ikip does that to create an inclusionist "cabal" or to change !voting on AFDs. As Black Kite puts it very correctly: Advertising the existence of a project itself is not the problematic thing. To read a larger political intention in that message is one. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

These invites aren't neutrally worded, and only people of a stated point of view were solicited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is long-standing practice that invites are sent out to those people where you can expect they will be interested. I would not send a WikiProject Star Wars invite to someone I know likes Star Trek - that would be stupid. And all the invite really says is a.) that the user is likely to be interested in ARS and b.) what ARS does. Would you mind telling us how exactly that is not neutral? It does not say "ARS is an inclusionist 'cabal'", nor does it say "ARS is to spam AFDs with keep-!votes" or "ARS is to battle deletionism" or anything... No offense meant but I think you are reading something into the message that the message itself does not say. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad example; someone with a Star Trek template on their talk page is already interested in decade-old mainstream science fiction franchises with cult followings.

Why did Ikip choose self-declared inclusionists and only self-declared inclusionists? Why did he send only inclusionists a message saying "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? What shared visions do the people with the AIW and inclusionist userbox have besides inclusionism? He doesn't have to say "I want ARS to be an inclusionist project" outright when he tells inclusionists and only inclusionists that the project matches their vision of Wikipedia, and when the talk page has clearly slanted calls to various article standard discussions elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrast what Ikip did with advertising ARS to WP:CSB members, with a mention of the FUTON bias. Or to whatever the music WP is, since bands and albums step up to the bat with two strikes against them if notability is even slightly unclear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of have to read between the lines. No one is going to be so stupid as to say "please join this project so we can disrupt the deletion process because we are all inclusionists who think notability is bad" If you are holding out for that, you might be waiting a while. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to move this to a less visible venue which is going to naturally be inclined to defend any effort to advertise it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Black Kite 10:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm gunna go with SoWhy on this one. The invites themselves aren't canvassing, now if they start rolling around like the "Keep brigade" without actually adding references and proving notability, then there's a problem. But that bridge has not presented itself yet. –xeno (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno; it seems several editors here are second-guessing what other editors intend to do, and guessing that those intentions are bad. That seems to me the polar opposite of WP:AGF. If there's a problem here, it's the lack of good faith being assumed by User:A Man In Black et al. Certainly no admin action required (yet). waggers (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Help me out, then. What's the good-faith reasoning for advertising a non-partisan project to (and only to) self-identified partisans of one side with the message "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? I admit I can't see it, but I came to WP:AN because I believe I could be missing something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that group is more likely to join ARS than a group that self-identifies as one that wants to delete articles? Because he thought inclusionists are more likely to want to keep borderline notable articles by improving them? As we have already (see above) ruled out that he can't have done it to manipulate AFDs (because they are closed by strength of argument and not numbers), I don't see any good-faith reason to assume anything other than maybe an unclear writing style. It is quite sensible to believe that a project which attempts to rescue articles rather than to delete them might be more attractive to editors who have self-identified as willing to work on less-prominent topics and it is thus more logical to invite those users than all users. SoWhy 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"He canvassed inclusionists because canvassing deletionists is a dumb idea" is a false dilemma and based on false premises, although I suppose it makes for a good-faith misguided reason to advertise to that group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He's advertising to those most likely to join, in an attempt to drum up support for a project that ultimately improves articles and by extension, the encyclopedia. (Perhaps he will broaden his invite set at a later date, at this point, he's going for low hanging fruit). I think there is no action required here unless the ARS starts canvassing eachother on actual deletion debates. –xeno (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing in general is frowned upon. "Frowing upon" at wikipedia has all the deterent effort of frowning at your television. However, I see this as an attempt at a countermeasure to the typical bullying tactics employed by the deletionists, who I'm sure watch the AFD nominations pages with eager anticipation, so canvassing them would be redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And they sacrifice cats, too. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now, the tools for that canvassing exist, for good-faith purposes. The project already has a template to add an AFDed article to a list of AFDs transcluded on the user or talk page of most of the project's members. That's why I have some qualms. A partisan Wikiproject isn't a big deal. A Wikiproject that keeps broadly-defined, criteria-less lists of borderline AFDs isn't a problem, as long as there's a reason for them to do so. A partisan project that keeps such lists is a problem, and it's much easier to head off efforts that would make that project more partisan than to close the barn doors afterward. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this isn't canvassing , "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." –xeno (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep reading down the page. I even use the same terminology as that page; I picked up "partisan" from the last time I re-read it in depth. This is a mass posting to self-declared partisans, and with an outlined possible negative effect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the invitations are not an invitation to participate in a community discussion, which is the crux of canvassing. –xeno (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. The invitations are to go to WP:RESCUE, on which there are several invitations to participate in community discussions, such as this. yandman 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If someone from the ARS setup a mailing list, or posted all over their "members" pages something along the lines of "Oh my God ... article WP:Foo is at AfD, everybody go !vote against its deletion now!", then that would be canvassing. Inviting people to join is common across many groups...targetting specific people makes perfect sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The project has an automatic template for "Article Foo is at AFD, give it your attention" with no practical criteria for addition to this list. It is intended for use on user pages or talk pages, and any time an article is tagged for the attention of the project it is automatically linked from the user/talk page of everyone with this template.

This is why efforts that would make it a partisan project are problematic; if the project is Inclusionist Task Force, then this is automated partisan canvassing for borderline AFDs. (I realize I've shifted here from Ikip's intent to the effects of his actions, but both would be cause to end the advertising to people with partisan userboxes.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As unpopular as it might be right now, I would have to say I agree with AMIB's concerns. This is clearly WP:CANVASSING to get more inclusionist Wikipedians involved in the project. At some point WP:TINC has to come into play, though. For what purpose he is canvassing, we can't prove. Perhaps he wants to involve mroe editors that he feels might be interested in the project, as he claims, or perhaps he actually does want to stack the votes at AFD in favour of keeping borderline articles. Only time will tell for certain. However, his attempts to notify users who responded to his invitation about the thread at AN/I is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. That act in itself diminishes my capacity to WP:AGF, as i'm sure it must for others as well. Saying "Hey, there's a discussion to block me from inviting more editors like you, you should look at it" poisons the well. That said, AMIB's concerns are, in my opinion, valid and logoical ones. Firestorm ^Talk 15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never notified about this thread; I stumbled upon it when I checked my Talk page history, and subsequently looked at Ikip's Talk page, since Ikip didn't sign his invite - all I got was four tilda's. Anyway, iit's good to know about the ARS, I think it can be a useful tool in building an encyclopedia if it results in consensus and improved articles, and I have no problem being "canvassed." Radiopathy (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, when I took a closer look at WP:CANVASS, there are some violations, and admin intervention, if any, should only focus on those, specifically, the issue of neutrality and "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages." I don't think vote stacking is an issue here, and I still don't consider this to be disruptive canvassing. Radiopathy (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not needed. If anything we have a stunning assumption of bad faith here in a thread initially started by someone from the category of deletionists against someone who was once named "inclusionist." More unnecessary partisanship. Someone (Ikip) is trying to get more participation in a project that seeks to improve articles. Aren't we here to do that, i.e. improve articles? Isn't that the whole point? Now, granted not all members will actually work to improve articles, but some like myself do and will. I for one would appreciate greater participation in those efforts as there are times where I am the only one doing the actual referencing and revising and my hope, like I believe Ikip's, is not to just get a bunch more keeps in AfDs, but rather to get help from those who are willing to actually work on the articles. If the end result is that articles nominated for deletion are actually improved, then what the heck? AfD is not about trying to win arguments and get articles deleted at all costs. Rather, it's about deleting those for which improvement cannot happen. As such nominators should not be bent on seeing it deleted, but should be happy and open-minded when their concerns are addressed and the article is saved. Thus, Ikip is taking a proactive and good faith effort to improve our project's content. He is being considerate to his fellow editors by notifying them of something that may be of interest to them and a way for them to help our project. That should be encouraged if anything. Calling the Article Rescue Squadron some kind of inclusionist tool would be akin to calling Articles for Deletion a deletionist tool. Why don't we assume good faith all around and get back to actually building an encyclopedia? Are we here to do that or play inclusionist versus deletionist war games? I'm hoping the former. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't inclusionist vs deletionist (for the record, I am neither). The issue is whether or not this user violated WP:CANVASS by first inviting only inclusionists to the project, and then notifying some of them that this thread existed, so that they could come comment on it. If it were just the first incident, then it would be easy to WP:AGF. However, the second occurrence after he knew about the policy does seem to diminish our capacity to assume that he is acting in good faith. Firestorm ^Talk 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I am of the opinion, based upon what I've read most people saying over the years, that the ovrewhelming majority of editors are neither. I espouse no "-ism" other than encyclopaedism, and I know that not I'm a lone voice in that regard.

      See also Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 17#Prominent inclusionists?. Ikip, previously Inclusionist, has been here before. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the above comments have lost sight of the basics of deletion policy. Deletion is a las resort, and it is always a good idea to try to improve an article. The effort will not always succeed. For more than half of what comes to Afd, it will not succeed, because the articles are unimprovable. People, as they get experience, will try on only the improvable ones. If the banner is used excessively, the effort will be wasted altogether. I do not consider everything on which the banner has been used as a good choice for improvement--but then, I've sometimes been wrong and seen something I think hopeless actually get sourced adequately. If there is concern that the project is being used wrong, then those with such concern should join to see it used better--I have sometimes joined projects I think are being too partisan in the effort to encourage objectivity.

As for notification about the project, the project was not hidden from people of different views. The banner was used, and anyone who follows afd must have been aware of it. It is fair to assume all people interested in deletion follow afd. I see it more of an appropriate challenge: OK, you say you're an inclusionist--let's see you do some actual work to improve articles.

As for notification about this thread, while it is policy that discussions here should be notified to those affected, going by deletionist/inclusionist userboxes, was ill-advised. But I do not think it serious, as AN/I is not subject to vote stacking the way Afd is. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick point - of what I was talking about further up - at least one of the users that was "recruited" to the ARS today has been through the list of tagged articles and !voted "Keep" on every single one except the two that are irredemably doomed. Most of the Keeps have non-rationales, the majority being "per above". He was obviously paying so much attention that he also !voted Keep on the wrong AfD for one article that had been closed since 2006. Now OK - most admins will ignore such !votes, but with the knowledge that you will be carted off to DRV if you so much as close any AfD which has numerous Keeps as Delete, then is it no wonder that there is an increasing tendency to go for the safe "No Consensus" option? Black Kite 19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Butting in a bit late but I don't see a problem here. A self-declared inclusionist is someone who wants to save articles. The ARS is there to save articles from deletion. Makes perfect sense to me that an invitation to join ARS would be sent to inclusionists. Asking them to put their money where their mouth is - so to speak. It's not as if AfD is a vote (if it is, it shouldn't be) and, presumably, after the ARS has done with its referencing or editing, the result would be judged purely on its merits. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• However, if it results in editors - as I've pointed out just above your comment - blitzing AfD with Keep votes with poor or no rationales, and making no attempt to actually improve the articles, doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem? If people recruited this way actually follow the guidelines of the ARS, then that's great, but ... Black Kite 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oh boy, this is exactly what I did not want this to turn into. I posted a request about WP:CANVASSING, not a referendom on the ARS or an attempt to spark a debate about inclusionists and deletionists. I posted here in an attempt to get an immediate decision on what Ikip was doing was right or wrong and to have action taken against him while he was canvassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case. I didn't actually expect people to defend what I see as a major and blatant violation of the behavioural guidelines. I'm very disturbed that a large amount of users here are defending him just because they agree with his cause, even though his cause was never my issue, it was his behaviour. Themfromspace (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, back to what I said: he didn't need to make reference to inclusionists in his tag, and should not have "personalized" each one - or mine, at least - with the editor's user name. Bring him up to speed on policy with regard to the actual hard issues. Just because I'm not outraged by what this editor has done doesn't imply that I'm defending him; I'm assuming good faith with respect to getting articles improved and don't anticipate (or anticipate participating in) "Keep spamming." Radiopathy (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is a bit unfair. I do have a slight philosophical inclination toward keeping articles but I'm hardly an inclusionist. Practically the only admin things I've done is to delete lots of articles! However, I can't really see a bias here. Inclusionists are the natural population for members of the ARS and inviting them to join is only natural. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm calling you out. Either prove that ARS exists specifically to spam keeps or stop posting about it. I expect better than crappy straw man arguments. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did I say that? No. In fact I specifically said that if people followed the ARS guidelines then that would not be the case. However, did I say that there was a danger that this could happen? Yes. Did I point out that one editor had done exactly that today? Yes. So, your point is? Black Kite 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who are arguing that all projects do this should consider that the template used is not like those from other projects. The problem is with the current wording of the template that is being used:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

If this was changed to:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rapidly improving articles that have been nominated for deletion, saving articles that might otherwise be lost forever. ~~~~

it would be similar to those used by other projects and quite acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, Thank you. This is a good suggestion which I am doing now, I have begun the arduious task of changing all of the postings, along with grammatical errors,Thanks User:TimVickers and confusing links. [5]

As I mentioned, way, way, way above, I added "Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[6], in the failed hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...but to not be in conflict with the "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages" clause at WP:CANVASS, delete all the code between the brackets after "Hello" - then it complies! I agree, even as an "inclusionist" who got the invite, that the template in its original form goes over the edge in several areas. Radiopathy (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. Importantly, it's saving articles "from deletion", not saving articles "for deletion" (which is nonsensical), I also tried to emphasize that people need to edit the article, not just turn up and vote at the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no harm in inviting someone to consider participating in a project. Besides, I have not seen any evidence of Ikip's actions resulting in a mad stampede for ARS membership. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS membership increased from 134 to 164 (roughly, Ikip and perhaps others forgot to sign-in previously) since Ikip started his recruitment drive. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this certainly got political quickly. Still, all the more reason why an organization like ARS should be more broadly advertised - if allegations of cabals and partisanship are being thrown about, much better to do it in the open with wide participation that in small groups on notice boards. MalikCarr (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CANVASSing to me. Ikip needs to stop entirely. Further, the implication by Ikip, and the entire ARS, that only Inclusionists believe in improving articles, or that Deletionists ONLY hang out on AfD, are both idiotic notions. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should be encouraged and applauded for his friendly effort to inform his fellow editors of a project that may interest them and allow them to help build our project. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a partisan group for us deletionists to join? purely to discuss knitting patterns and the like. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's AfD. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean New Page Patrol  ;-) Catch'em when they're young! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting my finger on the problem

My problem with Ikip's solicitation is that he recruited people to a project that should not be about partisan rhetoric, based on the fact that they had partisan rhetoric on their user pages. Admittedly, this is based on my feeling that [inclusion][deletion]ist is partisan rhetoric. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. WP:CANVASS reads "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive."

Now, in choosing to select only "inclusionist" editors to send the template to, he is trying moreso to influence the outcome than to improve the quality. Inclusionist editors are more likely to vote "keep" at an AfD. As has been pointed out already, editors from the ARS routinely vote "keep" at AfDs even when they haven't helped the article out at all

There's a table on WP:CANVASS that I invite everyone to see. It shows the difference between properly informing editors and inappropriate canvassing. Ikip's behaviour falls in the inappropriate category for scale, message, and audience; while only being appropriate for transparancy. If Ikip were to be fair about advertising the ARS (which, as has been pointed out, does have a strong inclusionist bent, which he relies upon), then he would have to solicit people on a small scale, in an unbiased manner (ie: not just to people with inclusionist tags), and make the message neutral (which there was a discussion on doing so earlier in this thread). Only then would his behaviour be appropriate in the way that I read WP:CANVASS. Once again, this is a problem only with his behaviour, and is not meant to be about the ARS, nor about inclusionists and deletionists. Themfromspace (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." ARS is not a community discussion but a project, so the whole point is moot. The assumption that this will lead to more keep !votes in AFDs is just that, an assumption, as is the idea that this will influence admins to start counting !votes instead of judging by strength of argument. So if this problem is a.) just assumed and b.) clearly not in the message, then we should tackle the problem if and when it arises (i.e. if XFDs are really manipulated) and you should really let it go here. It was concluded multiple times now that all these assumptions about possible discussion manipulation are just a "feeling" that cannot be found in the message itself. We have to assume good faith that this feeling is incorrect. SoWhy 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be excessively literal here. This was problematic, but it was problematic in misguided good faith. The message about advertising neutrally, both in message and in people solicited, is relevant. It seems to have been learned Ikip's stopped advertising and is rephrasing the messages, and hopefully nothing like this will happen again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me recopy what I wrote above:

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace (the person who created this complaint) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very same WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. ~~~~

Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages.

AMIB has in the past couple of weeks attempted to:

1. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
2. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
3. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue

These tedious, baseless attacks are getting really old.

AMIBs own extreme bias is clear:

"On cruft: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". (emphasis my own).[7]

Did't you used to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion before AMIB?

Several editors have attempted to close this ANI. Black Kite even moved it to the WP:ARS talk page, but AMIB, determined to beat a dead horse, reverted this. I suggest AMIB read: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and spend more times contributing to articles, instead of wikilayering ad nauseam.

UNININVOLVED THIRD PARTY >>PLEASE<< CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION

Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you really need to work on that temper. On another note, you yourself have just pointed out the problem here. Wikiproject Spam invites were sent to editors who have reverted spam, therefore equating Wikiproject Spam with reverting spam. Seems logical, no? You sent WP:RESCUE invites to editors who have declared they are "inclusionists". Therefore, you equated Wikiproject Rescue with being inclusionist, i.e. trying to redefine what that project is about. Add to this the fact that under your previous incarnation you attempted to merge WP:Rescue with WP:Inclusionists, i.e. the same thing only more blatantly, and AMIB has good reason to be worried. yandman 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think administrator SoWhy said it best:

What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote.

AMIB has good reason to be worried. Just like AMIB is worried that the {{rescue}} template is canvassing? There is a fine line between concern and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

As I also mentioned above, there is absolutly no rule broken by adding one of those 260 templates inviting a user to join a group simply because they have an inclination towards cleaning up spam, or an interest in Africa, or an interst in the Falklands War. The same goes for adding a template on an editor's page who seems to have an inclination towards saving information.

I kindly request that a third party close this discussion. Ikip (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who has received that invitation, I do not find it uninvited, nor do I feel it to be some kind of 'call to war'. I joined the group because I want to help rescue articles, and probably on a very casual basis. If anything is warlike, I find it to be the aggressive deletionism in which articles AND their histories are wiped out, before anybody is made aware of the issues. Tyciol (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Man. #1 and #2 are completely made up. In fact, I even came to your talk page for advice for rewriting WP:PRESERVE for elegance without changing its meaning. As for #3, it's is a misgiving I also expressed here, and connected with the spamming. This is more than a little sad.

I'm disappointed that Ikip hasn't learned any lesson here, that making things up and begging questions and hurling accusations in every direction are his substitutes for simply ceasing or amending problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

← I don't have the time, energy or dedication to read through all of the preceding commentary, but I would like to echo what User:Tyciol, whom I do not know, said just above. I also was glad to be made aware of the Rescue Squad, because I agree with its aims, and share Tyciol's concern about aggressive deletionism. I have commented in favor of deleting articles from time to time - I support the concept of notability and do not want to see the encyclopedia's value diluted by nonsense or POV pushing - and always view each article, AfD or discussion on its own merits, not slavishly following a principle of inclusionism or any other. But I have seen a rush to delete based on a small coterie of opponents all too often, and find that trend troubling - very often the article in question is wholly save-able. The aim of the rescue squad, it seems to me, is to do just that - improve articles and rescue them from oblivion. It is implicit that they be worthy of rescue. All Ikip did, by bringing this group to the attention of like-minded people, is to let us know that there is an active ongoing project dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia. This was not canvassing in any way, shape or form - no one has asked me to weigh in on any AfD as a result of this invitation - and I suspect that accusation was a form of forum-shopping designed to address something entirely separate. When I was invited to join the Beatles project I didn't think I was being recruited to some kind of army, and although sometimes the discussions there veer in that direction, overall it was a helpful advisory to me that such a project existed. The same is true for the Article Rescue Squad, and these accusations seem absurd on the face of it. Tvoz/talk 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to where most current readers would be. Giggles4U (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder here, AMIB has yet to show any actual violations of policy. Close thread.

AMIB, if you actually think something's wrong here, take it to RFC rather than rabbble-rousing. We have procedures for this kind of thing, procedures which you should follow instead of trying to start a lynch mob. Jtrainor (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

211.179.112.158

I have been referred to this board by the help desk board. I will just cut and past the discussion from that board here, as I think the whole discussion can be relevant from your consideration. Thank you.

Please let me know how to handle this case.

There is an IP user who refuses to adhere to the Chinese Naming Convention in relations to naming. In particular, the naming convention says when the name of the country is used, use "Republic of China" and when the location is used, use "Taiwan".

The edit dispute relates to Developed country and High income economy, when this IP user keeps changing the name of the country to "Taiwan". I have asked this IP user to use edit summary and the related discussion page, but he or she has refused to. This IP user keeps on giving me warnings when I reverted his or her edit.

Can Wikipedia rules be used to resolve this? Can blocking be used on this IP user in this case? If it is possible, what are the warning templates to use? Thank you.--pyl (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}, WP:3RRN.. Although in most cases IP editors like these are not editing in bad faith, they are just not aware of the policies so unless the editor is being totally non-responsive its best to try and discuss things with them on talk pages first. –Capricorn42 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

This IP user is totally non-responsive. I left a message on his talk pages referring to the Chinese Naming Convention. But he still reverted my edit and left warning messages. Please see User_talk:211.179.112.158. As you can see, this user has a series of warning messages from a number of other editors.

Are there any other things I can do other than the 3-rr rule? Does his behaviour constitute vandalism or removal of content? Is it possible to get an administrator to leave a message on his talk page and ask him to use talk / discussion / edit summary? Thank you again.--pyl (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI or WP:3RRN–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The naming convention doesn't say editors are forbidden to use the term Taiwan. In fact, it says the term is often more accurate and Republic of China has a note at the top saying: "The Republic of China was commonly known as "China" or "Nationalist China" until the 1970s when it has since been commonly known as "Taiwan"." In light of the higher 'use the most common name' policy, I don't see any violations here except perhaps 3RR but they'd have to be told about its existence too. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a convention, which means users *should* stick with it. What you are doing is exactly the type of discussion that I would like to be involved with the anonymous IP user, which he has so far refused to do.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, the convention clearly lists possible exceptions so it arguable still sticks to the guideline. Not discussing it, is unforgiveable. A single comment is the very least required in such a heated disagreement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I will refer this matter to the administrator's notice board and see if they can do something about this.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think forum-shopping is going to help, nor is it a wise idea. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. I came here because another editor above suggested this:-

"You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI"

And I thought this is the better forum to deal with the matter.

I agree with Mgm that discussions are required to reach consensus, and that's why I am here to see if administrators can provide us with some advice on handling users who do not response or discuss. Since the report is filed, I finally got some sort of response from this IP user and I will see if we can reach some sort of agreement.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, as I believe Pyl has noted in the past when the convention has not agreed with him, that the convention is still disputed. However, there have been attempts to follow it.

Second, Pyl has misstated the convention. The convention is not that "Republic of China" is always used for the "country". The word "country" is not used in the description of usages for "Republic of China". I'm not saying it was deliberate, because Pyl has stated in other places that he considers "state" and "country" to be the same thing, although I believe a quick check of the dictionary or even the country and state wiki articles will suggest otherwise. The convention is that "Republic of China" is used to refer to the state and the government, and is used political matters. This was long standing in the naming conventions article and was moved as part of an attempt to change thing, but the change never gained concensus. For that reason and because some editors have abusively pushed the "Republic of China" name in all cases despite the NPOV problems, I've put the text back in, though it may be changed because we've never been able to get full consensus. The convention of using "Republic of China" for political matters and Taiwan for other matters was quite successful for a long time and is a reasonable compromise between those who prefer the common name and those who prefer the formal name (and these preferences often have political basis).

If the article were listing types of government, names of the presidents, foreign relations or relations with other government that some might not consider "foreign", etc., then "Republic of China" would be the proper term. But for economics, "Taiwan" is used. Readin (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ignacio Don

A range of IP/anon editors (possibly all the same individual) have been adding a bio of an Argentinian footballer to Talk:Ignacio Don without there being an associated article. I have flagged the page three times now for speedy deletion but the 186.9. editors persisted. Would it be possible to WP:SALT the page on a temporary basis to encourage them to do it properly (ie. either request page creation, sign up and do it themselves, or try first in a sandbox then request a move). Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You put the deletion notice on the wrong page. It should have gone on the User's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page deleted. I think the IP is trying to create the page there because they don't realize that they need to register an account to create an article in mainspace. If they recreate the talk page, they should be directed to either a) post the article to WP:AFC or b) register an account. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 18:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion notice in the wrong place? I don't think so: I put {{db-talk}} on the page to be deleted. Perhaps the {{uw-create1}} should have gone on the user talk page, but since I had seen three different IP addresses involved in creating the page, I felt it was more likely to be seen by the user(s) if it was on the page they were editing instead. Astronaut (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning blocked editor, it seems

Resolved

 – Never mind, already blocked.

Grandstanding 101 (talk · contribs) just got here today, and his first edit [8] appears to show he's a returning banned editor. From there, his fifth edit was this [9] lovely snipe, where he called another editor "stupid" and "playing retard." Admin attention, please? It seems he's not here to do anything but push his own view and make enemies. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, blocked as another sock of Manhattan Samaurai. Wow. the self-proclaimed "Lex Luthor of Wikipedia" lasted a whole two minutes this time. We did him quicker than Al Bundy. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay removal of warnings?

Hello! I just noticed this terse removal of warnings, which appear to refer to such comments as this. Is that an appropriate response to the warnings? I'm reluctant to ask the editor on userpage given the way he removed the previous comments. Anyway, there seem to be some other hostile comments elsewhere, such as this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Editors are allowed to remove warnings on their talk page. This person does seem to have some rudeness issues though. Reyk _YO! 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is uncivil, but the removal itself permitted per WP:BLANKING. –xeno (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking warnings on one's own talk page is not considered grounds for sanctions, unless they're being used to hide a pattern of misbehavior - we presume that the warnings were read and acknowledged. It may be considered rude if they're blanking personal messages from other users with legitimate concerns. Dcoetzee 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be a history of less than civil edits in AfDs. See also this (what's with the Yahoo group link?), this (is "crap" really necessary?), this (is the mocking tone necessary?), this ("rawr"?), etc. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure low-level strong language is anything to get worked too up about. Reyk _YO! 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors

• Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)
• Scriptural reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [10].

Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."

Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [11] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully put, thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is just great. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is indeed reflected in the edit history of the article, and the WP:SPAs who have edited it. So, should we banninate the primary warrior here? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the indef block as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has just left a notice on my talk page about this discussion and directing me to it, so not sure whether I am supposed to post here, but he has posted. I have already posted details on my talk page about this incident [12] so not intending to repeat at length.

Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.

Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?

The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.

I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my account...so happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it as being part of an ongoing dispute, it can be nuked once this has all died down. I don't think the deleting admin was made aware of the controversy in which the user is embroiled. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to this page being deleted. The user has not vanished. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins inappropriate comments in this thread

A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".

It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.

This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity. HalfShadow 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Charming to respond to a WP:CIVIL notice by violating WP:CIVIL again. It's times like this I wish I had admin powers. THF (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They're (the admin powers) not as cool as they sound. Sure, they help us impress chicks, but that's about all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one other possibility, but he types too well for that to be likely. And it's times like this that I wish I had a unicorn. There's never a wrong time for a unicorn. HalfShadow 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between simply using the (cover your ears, children!!) f-word!!! and an actual incivil personal attack - in much the same way that there's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between a painting of a knife and stabbing somebody in the face. It may take some deep rumination, but I'm confident that you - and others who enjoy being the first to fling around wikilinks to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - can grow to understand it. =) Badger Drink (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The civility and personal attacks policies are not a black and white spectrum. The original abuses above were neither as blatant nor as specific as many in the past.

However, there is a renewed emphasis in policy circles that the policies are real, serious, that we mean it (from Arbcom at the top through normal admins and editors), and that the at times and in places rampant abusive behavior on wiki especially in admin forums has to stop.

There is nothing in this thread that required or justified rude language or abuse of the problem account.

HalfShadow's initial behavior was across the line but not horribly abusively so. His choice of responses to the initial warnings was most unfortunately less ambiguous. His behavior has a problem - he needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, please count my !vote in support of the block given by GWH, though I won't be participating in the ensuing wikidrama. THF (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete overreaction. Block should be undone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And even if a block was warranted here, GWH should not have been the one doing it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking on the original issue would have been a complete overreaction. A reasonable discussion (which Deacon, to be fair, started) as to whether the original conduct warranted a warning or not is fine. An edit summary suggesting another editor is insane and a comment suggesting another editor is insane are however evidence that HalfShadow has a problem with civility and NPA. As direct responses to an editor warning them about civility... He proved my point.

Admins are not conflicted out of taking admin actions on the grounds that someone they warned (after no prior interaction or conflict) turned around and got abusive on them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The use of "fuck" in this thread was problematic, but certainly not blockable of itself. I see nothing else here that shows that HalfShadow should have been blocked, it looks purely punative for the use of salty language, and I see no evidence of it being warrented. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. HalfShadow wasn't blocked for saying "fuck." He was blocked because he insulted two editors who asked him to be more polite. If we're going to take WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously, it needs to be enforced. There's no excuse for repeated abuse of experienced editors, and we don't do enough to cut it off at the pass, which is why so many editors burn out. THF (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems that no one really took note of or had much of an issue with the usage of the word fuck and such, til this admin decided to blow it up into a subsec of the existing discussion. Sometimes the waggling of the "thou shalt not" finger does more to inflame than the original act could ever manage. All in all, an egregiously bad block if I have ever seen one. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

::Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) Striking out inadvertent extraneous text. Not sure how that happened. THF (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow is quite often uncivil and left cynical and unhelful comments here, so I don't wonder he is blocked for his incivility.--Caspian blue 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has to take the walk for 24 hours from here. Not bad decision.--Caspian blue 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments here can be read that way now that I reread with that in mind. His responses on his talk page don't indicate that to me, though.

I don't want to step on people just being satirical, but if that was what he had in mind he should have said so after the warning, or at least after the block, and he's instead defending himself on his talk page saying that the block was inappropriate because I was in conflict with him (because I warned him once??). I would think that he'd be likely to have explained himself then if his original intent was satire. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going strictly by what he said here, and I gather he doesn't always know where the "line" is. I don't always know either, and that's when I've been blocked. If I were him, I would do as I have done when I've been blocked: find something else to do for 24 hours. It's Saturday. Go to the movies. Go shopping. Help the economy. Wikipedia will likely still be here upon expiration of the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan on commenting on his talk page, per request? seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did with the block warning. He deleted that from his talk page, along with previous warnings by me and THF, as he is entitled to do under the userpage policy. I generally try to avoid interfering with an unblock request from one of my blocks that's active - that's for other admins to decide.

If there a specific other request up here for me to ask him / talk about? I don't have a problem with engaging in more discussion with him on his talk, if he will actually discuss something and not just delete it again. What do you suggest I ask or suggest? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

civility break 1

Without commenting on the comments or the block at this point.... I remember responding to a WQA sometime ago that was filed against HalfShadow mid-last year. I'd initially suggested that if there were still problems, that it went to RfC, and that a friendly reminder would be enough - but based on his responses to that reminder (which were plain - not satirical), I ended up closing it as "stuck - hopefully the incivility would cease" and advised the filing party to bring it straight to a noticeboard the next time there was a problem. This may be irrelevant given that it was so long ago, and I can't find the link, but wanted to note it just in case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Google, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. THF (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fuss about nothing - "fuck right off" just means "go away", it's not aimed at one particular person. And in that sense, many people should fuck right off in regards to their conduct here - the block was pathetic and should be overturned immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As is noted in the block message and above, the block was for insulting other editors (violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Kcowolf (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• George is right: rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some, so we are asked to keep it out of anything that might be construed as an "official" procedure or discussion. Even I have worked that one out by now, and I am pretty dense in that regard. I always italicise right anyway. Yes, we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block on its merits, too, though it would be better if someone other than one of the insulted users had issued it. Because admins are prohibited from blocking users they are in a conflict with, I'm granting HalfShadow's unblock request, but I'm also reinstating the block as a block of my own.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block...when writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. This brings into play the issue of swearing on the talkspace. Swearing, not by vandals, but by editors to make a point or give emphasis. But it (swearing) brings with it its negative connectors and responses and the conversation starts downward. Dignity is required in this process; we should seek to engender goodwill and approval, co-operation, not the opposite. This is an adult environment, not a saloon. There is really no good argument to the contrary. Administrators should convey propriety not bad examples. BTW... fuck right off means fuck right off. If he typed Go away it would have required fewer keystrokes and would have been less agitating!--Buster7 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we fucking serious? We blocked half-shadow for that? (the two diffs noted on his talk page). Come on. I'm not inclined to think that what he wrote there was appropriate, but we have to accept that multiple perceptions of these boards exist. Some people think of them as places akin to a judge's chambers, where arguments and positions are presented in a semi-official manner. Some people feel that they are simply a mechanism for notification of admins and interested editors. Some people feel that they are a watering hole. These have subjective interpretations have varying levels of acceptance and legitimacy, but we certainly don't need to engage in some heavy handed nonsense in keeping the "f-word" off of them. Unbelievable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the block, but there is far too much unnecessary sarcasm and snarky commentary on WP:ANI, and oftentimes it crosses the murky line into incivility. I would put HalfShadow's comments in this thread into that catchall category. Poking fun at another productive contributor is not appropriate (i.e. comments on Georgewilliamherbert's sanity). Wikipedia is not censored, and WP:ANI is not censored, but it's not appropriate to stop by WP:ANI just to leave a snarky one-liner aimed at someone else. -- Samir 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of censorship. If someone is claiming censorship, they need to reexamine the evidence. I don't think half-shadow is being "censored" in the sense that someone is using authority to control content or discussion. We are just (rightly, as you note) trying to avoid cynicism and sarcasm in our forums (which project poorly w/o extra-textual clues) and we went too far in conflating "bad language" with malign intent. I don't think half shadow was intending to lower the discourse or demean another person, I think he was intending to be funny and blunt (or funny by way of being blunt). Was it poorly received? Clearly. Was it a bad idea? Probably. Was it something so wrong as to prompt a somewhat officious "warning" which devolved into an inappropriate block? NO. Suggesting that someone has taken leave of their faculties in leveling a warning is uncivil (borderline, IMO), but not a personal attack (again, IMO). Doing so in an edit summary on your own talk page is relatively harmless (honestly...). Doing so on AN/I is not harmless and half-shadow should have known better. But the impetus for the block ("fuck right off") was an unneeded minor panic over a word used more gently than a former vice president used it with regards to a sitting united states senator. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody was blocked for saying "fuck." (And if Dick Cheney spent a trillion dollars on a fruitless war, would you do so just because he did?) THF (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "fuck" is not blockable (and that comment is not the trigger of this block). But insulting others repeatedly ("you could burst into flames spontaniously", "I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity") is. WP:NPA is policy, and there is never an excuse for violating it. See, generally, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#How to raise the tone of the wiki.  Sandstein  23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, THF. You'll note the sentences I spent on the two diffs cited in his block. I referred to the use of the word of curse as the impetus for the whole display which has played out here. And as for sandstein, I understand that NPA can't be violated but we really should treat things in perspective. This whole thing escalated too quickly for stupid reasons all around. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on 2 secs...someone says "Fuck Right Off" to nobody at all, which is not uncivil. Someone says "you could be nicer" and he gives a little sarcastic reply "and you could spontaneously burst into flames", which is NOT an attack, it's sarcasm, meaning "um, not likely". Someone wrongly gives him a warning, and he got a little pissy, and then he gets blocked? A-B-C anyone? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy this whole thread sure went to hell in a handbasket. Suggestion: Everyone just take your hands off the keyboard... and back away very slowly - then look around at the real world. This has gone way off-track. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Handbaskets are fun. Hell...not so much. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm familiar with the lol cat that says "I iz adminz" and "this iz serious bizniz" and all. But this is supposed to be the big boys board. Self-importance doesn't belong here. This whole thing was about a religious posting, and how to handle it. Somehow everyone seems to have lost track of things. Wikipedia: The objective is to be "objective". geesh. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block per Sandstein. If this was the first time HalfShadow's civility was an issue, maybe a block would be an overreaction in the absence of trying to talk to him (eg; through WQA or other methods). But that's just it; this isn't the first time - attempts to discuss it with him have been unsuccessful. Per Guy; rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some...we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI, the block expired some hours ago anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah...seeing I did end up reviewing this, thought I'd note my view for the record before this is archived. Ncmvocalist (talk)
      • I wonder about the value of contesting blocks that are 24 hours or less. It's not like they're going to undergo withdrawal or something. Or maybe they will. I was thinking maybe there should be restrictions on contesting short blocks. The risk there, though, is that overzealous admins (if there are any) might take it as license to block more freqently and more frivolously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting the block, just the blocker. And vocalist take heart in the knowledge that your thoughts and opinions have no value to me. That goes for THF and Caspian, too. HalfShadow 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow, if one is blocked for making personal attacks on an administrative noticeboard, it is unwise to return to the same thread with more personal attacks. I was about to re-block you, but I don't want to sound like a broken record, so I invite any other administrator who concurs with my assessment to do so.  Sandstein  18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 'personal attack' to state an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is 'wanted' or not. Calling them a name would be a personal attack. Suggesting their intelligence is flawed would be a personal attack. Simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value to me isn't; it's simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value. I have nothing more to say on the subject: I simply do not care. HalfShadow 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see the attack. Yes, HalfShadow could perhaps be a bit more civil. However, other people could just learn how to appreciate sarcasm instead. I see nothing in this discussion that was a clear personal attack (meaning that it was malintentioned). The way I see this thread, HS was being sarcastic, people got pissed, he responded with more sarcasm, people got even more pissed and warned him rather than WP:AGF, and then he understandably got a little upset about it. All in all, this doesn't seem like an issue that we can't move past. Firestorm ^Talk 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow made his point quite clearly last year (in the WQA thread cited at the top) - I never assumed that changed. But I suppose I should be the one to break the news: my thoughts and opinions in this thread were written purely for the community; it really is of no consequence whether he, the subject of the thread (who ended up blocked), considers them valuable or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The surprising thing is that there's any controversy over this. Dropping an f-bomb is problematic enough, but it crosses the line to follow up with insults at two people who've asked for greater politeness. When and if WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA get downgraded from policies to suggestions then rudeness may reign supreme at this site. Until then, Usenet is thataway. Kudos to Sandstein for doing it right (Georgewilliamherbert really should have recused). Durova^Charge! 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One would imagine that those most sensitive to rudeness would be those least likely to block as an involved admin. Or does politeness just apply to those who prefer Joyce to Austen? I dunno, seems like a "he was uncivil, so he doesn't deserve my civility" argument completely undermines what the CIVILity Brigade is on about most of the time, and just goes to show you how these endless debates are much more about silly little power-struggles ("ooh, I get to get this guy in trouble! Teacher, teacher! *puts on best 'wounded' face*") than they are about people's wounded psyches. Badger Drink (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrying a Move Request

Goran.S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Goran.S2 has posted a link to a Talk:Ana Ivanović#Requested move at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Serbia, a group he knows to share his opinions. He had previously done this with a similar discussion at Novak Djokovic, which has since turned into a battleground between Eastern Europeans and WP:UE supporters. I asked him to remove his message as inappropriate canvassing at the Move Request discussion and at his Talk page, but he has refused.

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

In a similar vein, User:Biruitorul alerted a friend to the same Requested Move to votestack the opposition, as seen here. When brought up on the Talk page, the friend, clearly misunderstanding votestacking, says it's okay because 'Biruitorul knows that I have taken part in all such "let's drop the diacritics" debates in the past, and I have made my opinions clear for each and all to read.', which confirms that Biruitorul was contacting someone he knew to share his beliefs.

I hate to see this discussion turn into a war beyond its worth, but the canvassing is clearly meant to turn it into such. It seems like a common-sense example of WP:UE to me, but the discussion so far has not been very constructive, and with the latest developments, it appears to have lost any chance of being so. Any advice? --Yano (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see myself hauled before this tribunal again. Neither Göran nor I told anyone how to vote; we were merely informing parties we knew to be interested of an ongoing debate (which, I might add, is itself being conducted in rather sly fashion by Yano, taking one article after another and proposing that diacritics be removed thence, instead of centralizing the discussion somewhere). Surely there's nothing wrong with that? After all, no one can know what's going on across Wikipedia at all times. Dahn even confirmed I did not canvass him, and no one has bought the canvassing charge in Göran's case (on the contrary).

So can we dismiss the case already and move on to more substantive arguments? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, I think you've misunderstood votestacking. This seems like a clear example of it, and I included you here in the hopes of making it as clear to you as it is to me. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. As for your second point, there is already consensus on Wikipedia to follow English usage, so accusing me of being sly for enforcing that guideline seems a little over-the-top. --Yano (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is not a vote, and I've read the canvassing guidelines many a time, thank you very much. Regarding the second point: it would be more straightforward for us to have one central discussion rather than bringing up the same issue every week. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UE and the other naming conventions were all discussed by the Wikipedia community before they were adopted through consensus. That central discussion you wanted already took place, and it was in favor of common usage. If you want that to change, then renew the debate on a wider scale. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have much to do with ANI, and in any case, we use diacritics routinely, regardless of usage. Nothing wrong with that, provided redirects exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Baselessly claiming that readers of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Serbia cannot or will not support WP:UE and framing this dispute as "Eastern European vs. upholders of WP:UE" is both offensive and only serves to poison the editing atmosphere around the discussion.

The message left at the wikiproject was a single neutral notification at a general venue, and thus not a breach of WP:Votestacking. That you happen to believe that the audience of this message will not respond to it in an unbiased fashion is a personal prejudice, and nothing more. The only admin intervention required is a watchful eye on the discussion, to prevent a discussion on the quality of sources being recast along nationalistic lines. Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response is hinged on the idea that my claim is baseless, but we have seen from evidence that it is not. Your choice of language in characterizing me is also rather extreme: "poison," "offensive," "personal prejudice," etc. I don't believe any of that is an accurate reflection of the issue or my concerns. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you personally perceive a correlation, this does not imply cause. Extrapolating your observation into stereotyping based on nationality is unfounded.

Just because an editor comes from Eastern Europe does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive. Just because an editor reads a certain national WikiProject does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive.

Framing an editor's interpretation of policy based on their nationality is not an accurate reflection of the editor. Claiming all cogent dissent in this discussion is entirely based on nationality is not an accurate reflection of the issue or their concerns. Knepflerle (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Members of that Project who responded to canvassing in the past prefered the Serbian spelling. It follows that the same person who did the first canvassing would expect a similar turn-out. In essence, User:Goran.S2 was calling for backup. We do not want Talk:Ana Ivanović to turn into the same perennial debate that Talk:Novak Djokovic did following its broadcast at Serbian Wikipedia and Project Serbia, but this is exactly what will happen if these simple matters of WP:UE keep turning into battles of national pride.

Your exercise in logic is also too elementary to accurately reflect the entire situation, because there is more at play than you consider in your scenario. --Yano (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Perceived) past correlation is not a basis for permanent stereotyping. The closing administrator will weigh the quality of argument presented, but in doing so is not going to assume a priori bad faith of a user based on nationality or membership of a WikiProject. Until then, it's far from clear what administrator intervention is needed right now. Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action might be to make User:Biruitorul aware of his votestacking and to rectify the inappropriate canvassing by User:Goran.S2. Ideally, the move request would also be settled before it explodes. --Yano (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I confirm that I am aware of your opinion that I votestacked. No admin action is needed to make me aware of that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Being willfully quarrelsome is not helpful. --Yano (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? You called for an admin to make me "aware" of your opinion that I votestacked. I am confirming, for about the fifth time, that I am aware of your opinion, for what it's worth (precious little). No admin is needed to make me aware, but I would certainly like it if one came by and closed this rather farcical thread. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Digwuren has arrived to strike out some of my and others' comments, in addition to accusing me of assuming bad faith in the edit summary. The discussion is starting to focus on individual editors and larger causes rather than on how to comply with guidelines. --Yano (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue with no one, but Yano mentioned my name at least five times, so I must say something. This articles are part of Wiki project biography, Serbia and tennis. Before, we had discussions on Wiki project Tennis, calling people from project to help with some tennis articles; so what is problem for calling people from project Serbia (which is articles part of) and asking then if they want to participate in open discussion? I didn't say "vote for this, or that", and I didn't "recruit" people from some other part of Wikipedia community, I just ask people for their views from project Serbia (as same I would ask from project tennis), which is article part of. I know, people from project Serbia don't share the same views as Yano, but everyone have a right to vote in survey; and I think there lies the problem. --Göran S (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is an important task for each country project to formulate a guideline over transcribing names related to their country. It appears that members of Serbia project choose to use diacritics in Serbian name. It was their choice. Members of project Russia have different rules, members of project Estonia use another rules, project China uses another rules, etc. It is reasonable and commendable that tricky cases are discussed on the project. It is not canvassing. If a name can be related to different projects with different rules then the announcement should be made on all the relevant projects otherwise it indeed can be seen as canvassing but fortunately it is not the case here (thanks goodness). If somebody thinks that members of a project adopted wrong sets of rules then it is their task to persuade the project to change the rules rather than change a few random names by stealth Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Does User talk:Praveen4nes strike anyone else as kind of odd?

Resolved

 – Deleted. — Jake Wartenberg 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Praveen4nes (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) just came across my radar. It is chock full of personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers, names, etc. Does it seem a mite strange and rather delete-worthy to anyone else? --Dynaflow babble 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Only 1 contribution by the owner, therefore nothing that needs preserving. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

possible vandalism

Resolved

 – Problem Solved. — Jake Wartenberg 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a template on the page 68 that looks legit but is full of red links, and I wonder if maybe a vandal found it and messed with the dates that are redlinked. Can someone look into this? I'm only on the page on account of homework, and unfortunelty due to the homework can not spare the time to investigate further. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I only saw two redlinks, in the infobox under the dates for the Hebrew calender. Perhaps it was a random glitch? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, it's left over from the MediaWiki upgrade (see WP:VPT). Fixed by purging the page. Hermione1980 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sławomir Biała

Resolved

 – User blocked MBisanz ^talk 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sławomir Biała (talk · contribs) is a new user who has been acting oddly. He has asked to be blocked for being a vandal. Created an insulting page. Insulted other editors. And now posted a fairly inappropriate comment to his userpage [13] that insults various ethnic groups. Bringing for review here before blocking for disruption. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need that sort of behavior disrupting the work of other users. Kylu (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Child's personal information

There's a child revealing personal information at User:Bea0015. Thought it would be best to bring it here. Readro (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You likely won't get a positive reaction from the editor by describing them as a child - teenagers can get proper surly with such stuff. I shall have a word with them on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

15 is not a child, it's an adolescent. No 15 year old thinks it's a child. Unfortunately, no 15 year old thinks it's a mortal being, either, and they often reveal information that could potentially put them in danger. (Of course, that doesn't explain Michael Phelps.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken, however my main concern was raising the point. Apologies to all teenagers. Maybe "minor" would be a better term for next time? Readro (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jailbait" ummm....I think "young adult" is the pc term - speaking of which, a great many of our pc using editors and some sysops are young adults. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do they still use the term "San Quentin Quail"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically Young adult would be more 18-24, wouldn't it? That being said I don't think there's much of a concern with him giving out his first name and city. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a copy paste from something else, nvm ><) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I thought a Young adult was 20 - 25. His last name is also there but I'll doubt that he has a mobile phone (IE: he wouldn't be in the white pages) in his name (Next to his age) so I wouldn't be overly worried but it's up to Wikipedia's policies (Not sure if there is one about this type of issue). Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that "child" can cover anyone up to 13, and "young adult" beyond that. That said, it's not based on anything, just my personal feeling! And if it's just first name and city, then there's nothing to worry about! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of lines down he gives his full name and date of birth. Readro (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think we need to mother contributors who are 15- I was editing under my real name with the name of my village on my userpage when I was 15, no one ever saw fit to attack or mother me, and so I'm still about. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "young adult" may have its origins in publishing as it was instituted to describe popular literature for teenagers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Only as an aside, I think it's untowards to call anyone over 12 or 13 a child unless their behaviour straightforwardly calls for it. Far more fit terms, I think, would be (depending on what's being talked about), underage person, minor, teen, young person, young adult and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• In response to the first comment, well, I'm a teen (won't reveal any info [duh!]) and I don't do things like that!  ;) Anyways, we should have a talk with this guy. Should someone delete this stuff? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I notice he's been blocked for vandalism now. Readro (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to those who thought nothing should be done, how do we know that the information they published was actually theirs? I guess I don't have a problem with a 'child/young adult, teen, whatever' displaying their own info (though I'd like to see someone mention to them it's a bad idea), but how can we actually know that it is their information? --Ged UK (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't know for sure, but the information has been removed from his user page now anyway. -kotra (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, it was a hypothetical question really. Just I think it's risky to assume that it is actually the person it says it is. --Ged UK (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockfest

Resolved

 – Block party. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's apparently an ongoing problem at Strong Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Given the following: diff = diff = diff ≈ diff = diff = diff = diff = diff, that gives us a whole drawer-full of socks. They are:

• Sowazaadizmorni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Itoljuchihanocarir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chiluflaaliz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dondeestalupe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lupitaarroyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iditwajuasgmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ditiheerii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chihanocarir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Happy blocking. --Dynaflow babble 07:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving to SPI. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chihanocarir. A CU should deal with it. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Drexelenglish

Check out User:Drexelenglish. Class project or something? With bonus copyvio images! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Images deleted as obvious copyvios. I've left a note for Drexelenglish (talk · contribs) pointing them at Wikipedia:School and university projects and explaining what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also deleted their user page, quoting WP:NOT in an attempt to avoid the rather more WP:BITEy CSD#G11, as the whole thing was an advertisement for something called Project H.O.M.E. Any admin should feel free to undelete if Drexelenglish asks for the material back. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 10:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

USers Willking1979 & Marek69

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 11:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

i deleted a section on mongoloid article with an explanation in my edit summary, then USer:Marek69 came along and accused me of blanking without explanation. i left a note on his talk page expplaning what had happened, and reverted him on mongoloid article again. USer:Willking1979 came along and reverted me, and accused me of blanking without explanation, which i did explain. i left a note on his talk page, and then reverted him. he removed my note and totally ignored it, and reverted me, and i reverted him back, and then admin J delanoy accused me of vandalism.

i suspect these are trigger happy users who use huggle primarily to increase their edit count, rather than genuinly fight vandalism, as willking1979 and marek69 totally ignored me, and willking accused me of the same thing twice, thinking that since i am an ip, no one would beleive me and everyone would beleive him, and thinking i woulnd take this up this far. these usrs should be stripped of their huggle tools and blocked for a period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i am going to handle this on the talk page of the article

User:Mezlo & an extended history of vandalism...

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week. — neuro^(talk) 11:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Mezlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to have a long history of semi-unchecked vandalism... I happened across a new article created by them (which was subsquently tagged for CSD), and then after leaving a message on their talk page, decided to take a look back through their previous contributions... It seems that the user has recieved several warnings (including a final warning) for their vandalism, and has even been blocked once for it... The user removes the warnings from their talk page after a while, and continues vandalizing... He/She/It has recieved 7 inappropriate article warnings, 2 level 3 warnings, and 1 final warning... Of his/her/it's total 262 contributions, 94 have been chatting with friends on user talk pages, 83 to userspace, and only 58 to mainspace (of which at least half (probably closer to 75%) have been vandalism)...

I do not believe this user has been an overall benefit to the project, and originally thought about just taking it to AI/V, but then realized that this situation needs more than a simple report and a short block... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mezlo is unlikely to win any prizes for his work here, but he's done nothing specific in 2009 that is blockable except for this vandal edit today and a similar one on Feb 11. Why not leave him a final warning? Do you think this is the type of record that would justify an indef block? EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he has not done much recently, which is why I brought it here instead of AI/V... I was not implying anything, more along the lines of having someone with more blocking experience than myself look into the case to decide if an extended block, a final final warning, or maybe just a detailed note or adoption should be the outcome... What I'm afraid of (after reading his talk page, and his comments on his friends talk pages) is that he is part of a small group of schoolchildren that really have no interest in bettering the Project as a whole, but are only here to chat with each other and cause minor mischief... I'm afraid if it goes unchecked it will continue indefinately, and I'd rather nip this activity in the bud now... whether that means he stops the vandalism and starts making useful edits, or he stops using the project altogether... maybe I'm just looking into his contributions too critically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mezlo has so few edits it is not worth taking the matter very seriously. Keep bringing things to WP:AIV as you see them, and if there is a long enough record of blockable behavior, more serious action could be taken. We're just not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright... like I said, it was more than a simple AI/V report... just trying to get more eyes & opinions on the situation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a week. Registered users are to be kept to higher standards than anonims and he already got a vandal block Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"disruptive editing"

Resolved

 – Blocked 24h. — neuro^(talk) 11:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was told by admin at AIV that this venue was more appropriate for this matter:

• 99.131.138.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Editor has introduced dubiously sourced material to a series of articles tonight, no references, no edit summary, continuing past final warning Deconstructhis (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deconstructhis (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• 98.227.102.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ditto, almost, for this character, whose schtick is not to introduce new misinformation but to change what's there. Somebody gave him a template telling him This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, an empty threat, as he just kept on going. The particular edit I noticed was this one, smugly made about 50 minutes after that "only warning" and about 40 after a milder one. Morenoodles (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs are blocked for 24h Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. Morenoodles (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvest09's disruptive editing

This concerns WP:TE, WP:DE, and maybe WP:COI.

Introduction

• 1) Harvest09 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as JScardilli (talk · contribs). After four months, is a WP:SPA working on one article.
• 2) This editor's first edit was on 11 October 2008 on Don Stewart (preacher) and has continued making edits to exclude critical information and include promotional material on miracles.
• 3) In four months the user has not edited a single article except Don Stewart (preacher).
• 4) This editor says he is in personal contact with the preacher/association and is writing a book on the subject/Stewart. ("it will be in my book".)
• 5) This user's motivation is clear and his edits as well as discussions are unproductive.

As the diffs show, this user is attempting to white wash established facts on an article he is personally tied to. The material below starts with simple obstructing edits and misquoting policy to flat out lies, vandalism, and WP:TE. To keep the material off he simply says its "controversial" then misstates wikipedia policy without giving any specific or clear reason. I have not found one productive edit by this user in his four months of editing on wikipedia. As such, I think the adminstrators should provide sanctions for his disruptive behavior. I recommend at least barring him from editing the Stewart article per WP:COI if not a stronger punishment to keep this behavior from happening again. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

• Attributing motives to other users
  • 1) First edit on the talk page claims "There seems to be an effort by some on the internet to criticize ridicule, and demean ministers of the Pentecostal culture..."
  • 2) Speaking to another editor: Mike Doughney "undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers." And near the bottom of the diff, "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual."

• Accuses the sources (organizations and living authors) of lying
  • 3) In this diff he is told not to call a living journalist a liar/Ayatollah.
  • 4) In this diff "following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News..." (Fisher is a living journalist.)
  • 5) In this diff he cautiously does it again calling a living author/journalist and an organization "...Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations." I read the articles, and in fact inserted the Dallas Morning News article and this editor is incorrect--as explained below. Furthermore this same Dallas Morning News is the one he wants removed below (see #12-15)
  • 6) In this diff, without evidence, claims "I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view." They were not misquoted or mislinked. But yes sources have views, but that's not reason for exclusion.
  • In contrast, he says Stewart's autobiography (a book by the article's subject) "seems like the most NPOV."
  • 7) In this diff he states: "In the section "What Wikipedia is not,” it says something about people using Wikipedia as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like."
  • 8) He wrote: "The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy."
  • 9) He wrote: "I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things."
  • 10) He wrote: "The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases..."
  • 11) He wrote: "...the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned."
  • He is wrong the other sources have everything to do with Stewart. As for the "old photo copy," it actually google's online archive. You be the judge: "Arson Could Be Cause". Kingman Daily Miner. September 22, 1982. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
  • 11.2)Repeated again: He wrote: "The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service."

• Exhaustive effort

He tries to get material removed by first claiming its false(see #3-11) then its misworded then just wants to remove it. The whole several day discussion is about one or two sentences (depending on the context) currently included:

In 1996, the Dallas Morning News noted that some of Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing, who heads a multi-million dollar marketing empire, writing donation letters for other evangelicals like WV Grant, Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts. Included in some of Stewart's fundraising letters was Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural healing power.

• • 12) In this diff makes several claims says the article clams Ewing was the creator of the green prayer cloth (which is incorrect). Then he asks "Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway?"
    • He is told what he wrote is incorrect. Yet, editors agree to add Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts to the sentence.
  • 13) Subsquently, in this diff, says "An editor has said the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart." (This is untrue.)
  • 14) In this diff, asks "Where does it say in the Dallas article that the Green Prayer cloth is a direct mail piece by Ewing?" (It doesn't.)
  • No such thing was ever said [19][20]
  • 15)In this edit he nows realizes that wasn't stated, but still wants a WP:RS-newspaper article on one who wrote some donations letters removed. He asks "but wouldn’t it be better to just not mention the prayer cloth"?

This is a good example of showing how this editor is not being reasonable and is very disruptive. After two and a half weeks of discussion, the user wants to ignore the sources and discussion to remove a sourced sentence. The sentence wasn't even critical either.

• Exclusion of material because its/could be critical
  • 16)Second edit on talk page says "You could criticize almost any church or ministry for fund raising and lifestyle...This kind of criticism does not fall under Wikipedia NPOV guidelines." (Shows an attempt to exclude material simply because its critical and misunderstands WP:NPOV policy.)
  • 17)Claims a link from google news is "an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned." That is his reason for removing a paragraph with several independent newspaper sources (as you can tell by the different footnote numbering in his quoted block). Ignores all the independent sources mentioned here to make a broad and unapplicable usage of BLP.
  • 18)In this diff he wants the same paragraph removed now because "it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved." No explanation of what's confusing or unclear despite the several. Another broad BLP claim to white wash material.
  • 19)Based on his misunderstanding over the one or two sentences(above 12-15), he wrote "I think the solution would be to remove the paragraph as it stands, with the inaccurate material and add the paragraph as follows with just the facts from what Stewart is doing and saying." (If a one claim is wrong then you remove that sentence not the whole paragraph.)
  • 20) In this diff, "Better Business Bureau doesn’t endorse its members anyway so it seems to be included only as a negative comment violating Wikipedia NPOV." The BBB wasn't a "negative comment," but simply said Stewart didn't disclose his finances so they couldn't judge him.

• Unproductive discussions
  • 21) In an attempt to move things forward Another editor asks "Harvest09, are you suggesting that this sentence word-for-word needs to appear in the reference?"
  • Harvest09 doesn't answer the question, but brings up another (and incorrect issue).
  • As the editor pointed out, "In the webpage which quotes the Dallas Morning News article, the phrase you quote does not exist, so the charge that it was "made up by Fisher" seems questionable at best."
  • As stated above, nonetheless the wording was changed and Harvest09 still wanted all mention removed.

• Removes cited material
  • 22) Removes a cited fact that he lost his tax-exemption.
  • 23) Removes the cited sources again.
  • 24) he removes a source ("Watch where you make donations," USA Today, February 3, 1992) with a summary "No link to verification removed for WP-V and NPOV."
  • 25) Wholesale removal of paragragh his given reasons "it isn’t supported by the reference cited and seems to be there only as criticism WP-V NPOV" aren't true. As anyone can visit the refs/links.

• Misleading edit summaries
  • 26) Summary marked "Corrected improper use and non-use of a comma", but is was a deletion of a name.
  • 27) "I corrected language that was NPOV" was an entire white wash. Once the white wash was complete his next edit removed the word controversial from the lede. This left the article a halfiography.
  • 28) Summary read "Removed random name in statement. WP-V NPOV" The name is mentioned in the context of the article and the source is link WP:V/RS.
  • 29) Summary says "Corrected information found in Bussiness Journal article", but if you look below he added "and no charges were ever filed" to a sentence sourced to the IRS, which is not made in that source. Also note he undid the other change a little while later leaving in the false IRS claim.

• Promotional material
  • 30) First edit includes promotional material it gets removed then added again then deleted, and added for a third time.
  • 31) Maybe not too promotionally but this uncited OR gets added repeatedly by him.
  • 32) He wrote: "I don't think anyone really cares that much about this page, but it is a good one to practice on." Later, its clear the article is not wiki-practice because he's writing a book on the subject!
  • 33) Wants material removed, but "it will be in my book."

An example attempting to work with user, most recent issue

• • 34) I sought opinions on this at the AN/I board for opinions, but got little help. Seeking to add mention of police shoot out (and the resulting three deaths) as well as riots and fundraising issues that happened related to Stewart led me to create Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph section (also mentioned in my AN/I thread). Another editor responded that it sounded good for inclusion and there was no response from Harvest09 for three days (though he kept editing the talk page). This lead me to add the paragraph assuming there was no issue.
  • A few hours later Harvest adds some material to the article.
  • Then he posts a question about the sources and I respond.
  • His next post calls the paragraph "offensive" and wants the material removed citing "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
  • Then he writes on another editor's talk "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"
  • I asked for my for any "specific sentence/source ... concerns". Again he gave no specifics. I asked again for specifics quoting myself. He again gave no specifics.

Violates WP:CIVIL

• • 35) He wrote: "Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs)

No offense, but way too long of a report to be effective. You'll get a better response here if you can boil it down to 2-3 points of interest. Dayewalker (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like you want WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Child cannibalism

Resolved

 – Baweeted. — neuro^(talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this article Chinese child cannibalism and determine the appropriate course of action if any? I'm off to sleepy land. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The only source being someone's web page, and even he said "This Story is not Presently Known as Verifiable". Deleted. yandman 08:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move - vandalism accusation- why?

While stub-sorting I found Judge George Carroll and thought it should be at George Carroll (judge). I have since consulted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and read "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation", and concluded that the article name is actually probably OK as coming under that exception (the other GC is a hockey player, recently moved away from the base name), but I don't think that explains why my attempt to move the page got a reply about suspected page move vandalism, and (as far as I can remember - apologies if not) instruction to come here for help. I don't now want to move the page, but I'd just like an explanation, as I frequently move misnamed stub pages and have never had this response before! PamD (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the move for you (although, yes, I see you didn't want the move after all, but I still think a move was called for). What will have happened here is, most likely, that you've hit a blacklist wildcard entry to prevent abuse by a certain page move vandal. It's annoying but probably necessary - and certainly no reflection on you and the good work on renaming that we've all seen you doing. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Didn't know about wildcard blacklists etc. Makes sense. And thanks for the compliment! Have now done far too much work on other assorted George Carrolls... must get on with some Real Life offWiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SgtAvestrand1956

I don't know what to make of SgtAvestrand1956 (talk · contribs). The editor makes the same couple of minor changes, and then self-reverts them, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at Physician assistant. The edit summaries, when present, have nothing to do with the edits.

The page has had previous problems with sockpuppets of User:Nrse, but this is a different type of editing. I doubt that a single user making even a dozen edits a day is going to annoy the servers that much, but it's... very odd. The user, who has been blocked once for edit warring, is uncommunicative and nonresponsive. Should anything be done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very...interesting. In all my time at Wikipedia, I don't think i've ever encountered something like this. Although it doesn't tax the servers, it does screw around with the page's history. I'm hesitant to say for sure what should be done, but I would think this would be treated like a violation of WP:3RR. Maybe? Firestorm ^Talk 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of him. A fundamental aspect of this encyclopedia is that it is built through a collaborative effort. Editors should have to respond to other editors and not just blank their talkpages whenever anyone makes a comment there. Especially when the edits are clearly unproductive/weird. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't just blank their own talkpages, but they can. Blanking one's own talk page isn't grounds for complaint (an exception or two exists), though flooding article histories with useless edits might be. -kotra (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much the blanking per se, but the blanking is a further indication that he has no plans of discussing his weird edits with anyone. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

True. -kotra (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically 3RR doesn't apply in this case: self-reverts don't count. However, the other half of their edits are vandalism, so perhaps a block is in order (as a vandalism-only account). -kotra (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rather tempting to block this account as none of their edits are really productive and it certainly looks like an attempt to swamp other editors' contributions to the page... but there is still a plausible case to be made that the user just can't decide which version of the text is best, and is editing in good faith. If anyone would like to extend a hand to this editor and offer advice on editing/previewing text, that would be great - otherwise, I don't think any serious harm is yet being done, so I'm not going to intervene. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching Physician assistant as well, and concur that the editing pattern there has been unhelpful. Not sure what to make of the editor--as has been said, he's not hugely harmful, but nor is he at all helpful. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they're trying to get their edit count up before applying for the mop? --Ged UK (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are probably looking at 2 people here, working from the same computer (and they always forget to log out, or use the remember me function). I think a (short) block would be in order, to get a response perhaps. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The reverts are happening within less than a minute at times, so I think that's probably not it (though it is amusing to imagine people physically fighting over a computer so they can edit Wikipedia). My theory is this user is experimenting with how well we fight vandalism. -kotra (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How to delete a malicious photo?

Resolved

I don't know how to get this deleted other than noting it here [21]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on Commons. You'll have to get a Commons admin to delete it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The uploader is clearly Photoshop-challenged. A four year old child could do better than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Placed a CSD tag on the file's description page on commons. -- Vary Talk 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

God I wish they would at least be creative about it. Chillum 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Perhaps we should have a category for active wikipedians who are also commons admins? -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. So how did that photo end up on Commons in the first place? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded by a brand-new commons editor commons:User:Newjerusalem2009 -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is he blocked yet? Where can I see a list of his so-called contributions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There was only that one contribution, which no longer shows up as I deleted the photo. You would see it under "deleted contributions". I am loathe to block for only one incident. Chances are we will never hear from him again. If he vandalizes again…. -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone really, really likes wheels. Cause for concern?

Resolved

WAAAALLLLEEEEEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An old friend, perhaps? --Dynaflow babble 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just another of the many wannabes. WP:DENY and WP:AIV next time ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, something might be going on. See Spock on crack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly this. --Dynaflow babble 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but one of these always crops up every few weeks / months. They usually get tired of it, or drop to the level where they don't stand out against the background noise. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Caught in a checkuser socksweep. -- Avi (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how, after all this time, Willy still has a fanclub. Firestorm ^Talk 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA is overflowing

Resolved

 – Our most prolific username reporter sometimes floods UAA. –xeno (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a backlog at WP:UAA. Any takers? --Dynaflow babble 10:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This should really be at AN, not AN/I. — neuro^(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

...someday after my RfA, I'll be jumping in there in a heartbeat. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this was dealt with. Calton found and reported a whole lot of spam usernames, causing the number of reports to go up from around 6 to around 56. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock block request

Resolved

Per this SPI report, could I ask an admin to block User:Saving My Face (a confirmed sock-puppet of indef blocked User:Nimbley6)? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unjust block

Resolved

I was blocked for "persistant vandalism". I was not signed in when this happened. The article I edited was Proxy war, in the Cold War section, all I did was, after a sentence about why the U.S. and USSR fought proxy wars to avoid nuclear war, I added in parentheses "see mutually assured destruction. This is not vandalism. It was in fact a minor edit adding a link about a relevant topic. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? There's nothing in your block log. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is there anything in the ip's block log. This edit is the top edit of the article. It wasn't reverted as vandalism. I have no idea what this is about.--Atlan (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were never blocked. Your IP address was never blocked. In fact, that edit you made was never even changed. What happened is that someone put a block notice on your talk page for reasons unknown. I will query that user. Tan | 39 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A user was putting block notices on several IP pages when the IPs were not blocked (and, in fact, the user is not an administrator). I have queried this user here. Tan | 39 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have indefinitely blocked the offending user (User talk:Johnlemartirao) following a review of past issues. Marking as resolved. Tan | 39 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've cleaned up their (frankly bizarre) templating from the last few days. So that's all wrapped up. And much quicker than usual. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist edit warring at Sfiha and other food articles

Today I have noticed that there are some anon accounts trying to slant articles on various Levantine foods in their favour.

For example at Sfiha, 90.212.155.29 (talk · contribs · count) introduced the term "Greater Syria" which 193.219.146.95 (talk · contribs · count) [replaced with Lebanon]. I tried [replacing with the non-nationalist Levant] which has now been [reversed in a series of edits] by 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · count) whose [removal of multiply sourced material here] suggests alignment with a Syrian nationalist group, despite the use of a UK internet address which the 90.212.155.29 id also has. As for 193.219.146.95, dispite the Vilnuis location, the history fo edits (especially today) suggest a strong Lebanese affiliation for the individual concerned.

Would admins be supportive of reinstating my de-nationalised text? (My reduction in cats is inline with the MOS on over-categorisation anbd actions on other food artilcles such as hummus.) And is semi-protection of this and other articles appropriate?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade back again

Resolved

 – All socks blocked... for now... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dundean19 has just been created and is starting to repeat the disruptive insertion of photographs for which Mysticshade was reported and banned yesterday. Changes on Irish People, Dublin and Dundee illustrate this. The pattern is too similar for it to be a coincidence, we may have a serial sock in the making (some aspects of Mysticshade has aspects of serial sock WIkipiere about the language and mixed celtic/Mediterranean claims. If someone could nip this in the bud it would save several us a lot of time!--Snowded (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was the huge similarity between User:Dundean19's edits and those of a serial sock called User:Nimbley6 (adding images, changing picture sizes, fascination with Scotland and any area tangentially related to Scotland). Looking back at User:Mysticshade their edit summaries seem very similar to Nimbley6 - this edit summary in particular is "classic Nimbley6". Just an observation, but I wonder if Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if you saw this above [22], but all the edits of Mysticshade and Dundean19 fit into the pattern, and blatantly if you ask me, of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked for socking in sock drawer quantities. I could bring it to Sock investigaions, but really, it looks blatant enough to deal with here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Addition) Of course, Historian could just be an account in the chain of accounts of a previous sock as well. (Sorry, I missed the earlest contributions of one of the accounts above) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ and we may have another User:MarshVeld just created, picture edits on Northern Ireland and several POV edits against consensus (Ulster flag etc). --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess not Nimbley6 - discussions on talk pages aren't Nimbley6's style. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A cup of coffee and a quick invigorating stroll later and it seems CSI:Wikipedia [[23]] thinks MarshVeld == Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Historian19 with a few other old socks added. (Oh, come on, I can't be the first to do the CSI:Wikipedia joke :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possible anon IP making Mysticshade-esque edits here. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• (...and now making "Im[sic] not who you think I am" edits too, just in case anyone was unsure! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Existentially-speaking, I may not be who I think I am either... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an IP. Ho ho ho. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they've admitted they're User:MarshVeld. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they're blocked. Thanks, Canterbury Tail! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 week (in case it's a rotating IP). Due to the nature of it I had to block all coming off the IP. If some established editors (non-socks) complain I'll review the block, but I thought it best going off the number of socks involved. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could User:GreyPoint be another sock? Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong yup on GreyPoint. Edited a lot of the same articles that Mystic/Historian were on (Dublin, Irish people, List of Scottish Americans) along with image fiddling in Rotterdam and GDP updating in Finland. There is another editor that has made two edits (as of now) that might fit in the pattern, but I think two edits is not enough to be sure, or at the very least, say it out loud.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please block this obvious sock? If the articles edited and behaviour isn't enough, it's Likely according to a checkuser on Commons, well likely for the account that uploaded an image GreyPoint added here five minutes later.. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Nishkid64. Marking thread as resolved; feel free to revert (I'm just a lowly editor!) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Resolved

 – the article has been restored. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

has been deleted by User:William M. Connolley, despite a deletion discussion that ended with a keep, see [24]. He claims that there is to much edit warring going on and that all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order, see [25]. That is absolutely not true, as several editors, including me improved the article and tried to enforce Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutrality. And since when is edit warring a reason to delete an article? Does this mean that I can get an article deleted by just edit warring on the article? Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Connolley's account must be compromised. I would suggest blocking the account pending further clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

did it not strike you as just a bit ironic to be suggesting to take this to the process of DRV, having just declared that process is not really important? why bother with AfD, if any admin can just delete articles he doesn't like? NoCal100 (talk)

Same happened with the article Pro-Turkism, also triggered by a 3RR report, see [26]. Afroghost (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just rechecked WP:3RR and WP:DP, just to be sure, and no, neither of them say you can delete an article to deal with an edit war. I see no way of escaping the conclusion that an administrator has violated Wikipedia policy and abused his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where has the article gone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a dreadful POV fork - amongst other issues - which probably shouldn't have been kept (precis should've been merged into the main article), but even given the ridiculous edit-war magnet that it's become, William shouldn't have deleted it over an AfD. That's what we have DRV for. I have restored it and fully protected it for 3 days to give some breathing space. Can editors please suggest some way of sorting the problems out on the talk page? I am prepared to extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You should no more have restored it without DRV than William should have deleted it without AfD. Lets not have any more back and forth with this, I hate it when admins go reverting each other without a decent attempt to come to agreement first. Chillum 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. DRV is for review of in-process deletions and deletion discussions. This wasn't one. Black Kite 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is only for "in process" deletions? Where is that written? What is process anyways? Chillum 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not always happy with Connolley's decisions (two to be exact), but then again I think he makes these difficult choices in order to retain neutrality, so I commend him for that. It is true the article is an edit war mess, we have had 2 AfDs. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of people voted keep yet most of them were not involved in the article and related articles before and after the AfDs. I do think Jalopenos and Afroghost have made an effort to fix the article but the article is a POV fork, it would be futile to salvage it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a POV fork, it's reasonably sourced but 80% of it is a litany of news stories. I'd suggest that editors urgently look into merging a summary of the article (most of it could be condensed into "Anti-semitic incidents were reported from many countries") into the main article. Black Kite 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BlackKite for the swift action. I completely disagree though with your claim that this is a POV fork. As it has been discussed during the deletion discussion, ending with at best no consensus whether it is one or not, I am not going to start this discussion again. This is not the right place for this discussion. And it is definitely not up to a single admin to make this decision and to delete (and in fact his reason was just edit warring). Doing so was a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the willingness to accept this abuse means that from now I will stop editing here. I tried my best to insist on good sources and neutral wording, and as my edits show I was willing to delete any edits regardless from which side they were if they did not conform to this policies. Good luck with your project, I am done. Bye. Afroghost (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had the solidarity to keep obvious violations of neutrality out of here. Even the title makes it clear the article seeks to espouse a particular point of view and the content only supports that idea. Often these things are quickly and correctly deleted, but you get enough people arguing that it is a legitimate point of view and we are stuck with it. I got news, the only legitimate point of view here is the neutral point of view, that that article ain't even close. It is not a neutral presentation of ideas, just one that has enough support to let the vote override policy(which is should not). Chillum 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Black Kite 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least that one problem in Wikipedia has been swiftly dealt with. Afroghost has been blocked. Chillum 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Afroghost should not be permanently blocked. All he needs is a cool down block for say 12-24 hours. I kinda understand why he went a little nuts. An article that he has worked so hard on gets deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? If something permanent should be done it should be the removal of admin powers from User:William M. Connolley, who with a horrific display of power abuse deleted an article that survived two afd's because he decided it was a POV fork.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed, but I'm sure an unblock would be granted if he came back and said "sorry, got a bit pissed off there - won't happen again". I'd rather not limit it to a short block just in case he is so incensed he does it again. Black Kite 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock the guy vandalizing and desysop the admin who deleted a POV fork? good luck with that campaign. That being said if the user is apologetic, then indef does not mean infinite. Chillum 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bkite: That might be reasonable. But am I missing something here? An admin just displayed the most egregious abuse of admin-power I have yet to see here at Wikipedia and noone is saying peep? I must be missing something here. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, VfDs are not real votes or even polls, they are certainly not binding on admins. An admin has to use his ro her good judgmen in deleting an artcle. The importance of the VfD is not any vote, but a mechanism for eliciting reasons for keeping or not keeping it (a good reason that has one vote carries a lot of weight, a bad reason - I mean interms of policy - that gets 50 votes has no weight; it is the reasoning, not the quantity of votes, that matters) an artcle. Why would anyone thing this is a compromised account? Can we calm down and focus on policy here? A POV fork should be deleted practically on spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not deleted as a result of an AFD, rather a violation of 3RR?!! Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Admins get to use discretion when closing an AFD. However, the AFD was already closed as keep by another admin. Connolley came in after the AFD was closed, and went and unilaterally deleted it anyway despite the consensus to keep. It is a flagrant abuse of the tools, and although I usually agree with the decisions he makes, this is not something that can go unnoticed. I have seen William confirm that it was him that did it, but I have not seen him provide any sort of justification for going over the head of an AFD. Yes, it may be a terrible POV fork, but we have processes for dealing with that. Unilateral deletion overruling an AFD is not the way to go about fixing it. I agree that some sort of sanctions should take place. Maybe not permanently losing the tools, but something needs to happen to prevent such a flagrant abuse form happening again.Firestorm ^Talk 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he should be desysop'd. Of course, i'm not saying he shouldn't, either. I can't suggest a course of action until he tells us exactly why he did what he did, which he has not done yet. A very stern warning at the very least is needed, and depending on his justification, pursuing a desysopping might be for the betterment of the wiki. That said, I would really hate to see that happen, because William has, in general, been a positive force on the wiki. Frankly, I was surprised to find out that he did this, because it just doesn't sound like him. So exactly what sort of sanctions I would suggest depends on how he justifies the deletion. Firestorm ^Talk 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometime things get closed wrong. Sometimes things that should be deleted are restored. Sometimes Wikipedia has non-neutral articles as a result. If an admin tries to fix that and then gets reverted for being out of process, it is not a failing, just a good attempt. Chillum 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

of course an admin can try to fix non-neutral articles-- just as any other editor-- through editing, the talk page, RfC, and the rest of dispute resolution. But he has no power as an admin to do anything about it, except to enforce what the community decides to do. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: the deletion policy technically doesn't disallow unilateral deletion. I actually applaud WMC for taking a more proactive stance in deleting NPOV-violating content such as this. We need to be more proactive. It's all fine and good saying there's no deadline, and that all NPOV problems can be sorted through editing, but I always felt that was too optimistic. Sometimes, you just can't fix something. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If unilateral deletion of articles for AfDs that closed as keep is okay, then I hope unilateral restoration of articles even if an AfD closed as delete is also okay. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as keep was a unilateral move. It is not like the closing admin was relying on numbers here, s/he had to use her/his own judgment. Connolley probably disagrees with the closing admin's decision, so it is one admin's opinion against another. On a related note I think there should be at least three admins to determine what the result of an AfD should be.

An admin unilaterally deleting an article that has survived an AFD is violating policy. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy is clear that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." An admin like anyone else can argue in an AFD for deletion or take a decision to deletion review if they disagree that the closure was correct, they cannot just say my view is better than yours and delete regardless of what the community says in an AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? - errm no. Where did you get that from. I gave my reasoning quite clearly on the 3RR page: Edit warring disaster area. I'm not sure I SD'd it either: I just deleted it. I wasn't claiming any of the SD criteria applied William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

William: Are we to understand that you will do the same in the future?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Just my 2 cents. Something that has bugged my since I first joined WP is this whole thing/process about "what stays" around here, be it articles, lists, "material" or whatever is that the ownous(sp) is on the parties that want to remove in stead of the other way around. I admitt I am a deltionist/minimalist, but shouldn't consensus be for what belongs here and not for what should be removed? Anyways, just my venting and I have no opinion on the amnins action or article per say. Thanks, --Tom 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than farting about here, how about if we work on that article to remove anything which is not explicitly identified as anti-semitic by a source other than Zionist newspapers and commentators? That's the fundamental problem with it, the assertion by Israelis that everything done to them is necessarily antisemtic, as if their actions against the Palestinians whose lands they illegally occupy in defiance of UN resolutions is wholly free of racist motives, while any retaliation by those they are rather brutally oppressing is motivated solely by racism. Or perhaps we should simply rename it to reflect the fact that these are actions against Israel, and reference the (no doubt equally problematic) Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Oh, wait, that's a redlink. Who'd have thought? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • or preferably, just chopping out the entire laundry list of events and merging the rest (not much) into the main article, which is where it should've been in the first place? I'm beginning to wish I'd left it deleted now. Black Kite 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Um what? This didn't have any original research issues. There were general articles discussing the anti-semitic nature of much of these attacks. This isn't about "Zionism." Nor if this at at all about whether or not the Israeli government's actions are motivated by racism. That's a completely separate topic. (No matter how racist the Israeli government it would not make any of these attacks any less anti-semitic) If there are sources for Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict by all means go write that article. In any event, this is besides the point. These are arguments for an AfD or a DRV. Oh wait. We had that. It was closed as keep because the community consensus was that it was possible to write a carefully written, neutral article on this topic and that there were sufficient sources. The issue here is that that article was then deleted out of process. That's not ok. If you disagree wait a month or two and try another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to be getting rather POINTY. I think we should wait until William can justify his actions in a detailed manner. I would like to hear him say exactly why he thinks that deleting what he sees as a battleground for editwarring over the head of two AFDs falls within policy, or at least within his interpretation of policy. William is known throughout the wiki as a good contributor and administrator, and something this radical seems out of character. I'm sure (at least, I hope) that he had a good reason beyond what he originally specified. The case might need a trip up to ArbCom, or it might just need a stern warning. Until William gives us more detail on his rationale, I can't be sure. Firestorm ^Talk 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I move that any arguments about the relation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, or arguments as to whether such a relation exists, or arguments as to whether or not it is anti-semitic to say such a relation exists, or arguments on what is or is not an occupation, or what is or is not an illegal occupation, or what is or is not proportional response, what is or is not terrorism, . . . be banned from this page. Nableezy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling the article a POV fork is incorrect. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is about an armed conflict. This article is about antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm frankly not sure what I feel about the article itself, but I think the best analysis was that of Mangojuice in the Deletion Review after the first AfD. [27], where--among other things--he dismisses the forking question as a side issue. The question is not whether or not the article can remain. The question is whether or not an administrator has the right to remove articles out of policy and against the clear and expressed consensus. the answer is fairly obvious, at least to me: the results of such actions if accepted would be chaos. I would have hoped the admin in question would simply admit the error, either explicitly or tacitly by agreeing that he wouldn't do such again even though he might still feel he was justified. I suggest we give him another day to think about the implications of his explicit refusal. I recall that the article in question is subject to arb com discretionary sanctions [28], and that on that basis alone, arbitrary action without any basis in policy was particularly unwise. DGG (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with the previous comment: there is a lot of noise in this discussion coming from people who have issues with the article. The place to voice those issues is/was the article's talk page and the article's AfD page, which was closed as keep. The noise should not distract us from the actual subject of this noticeboard discussion, which is the fact that an administrator deleted this article to deal with an edit war, thus apparently violating WP policy and abusing his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We just had an AFD a couple of days ago and it concluded with keep. Those who claim POV-fork should go to the latest AFD where most, if not all, of the popular criticisms were dismissed cordially. This is a clear breach in protocol for an administrator to simply delete an article after an extensive review which resulted in keep, overwhelmingly if I recall. I'm not disputing William's claims and perhaps they have merit, but they have all been thoroughly discussed at the afd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should try and keep this discussion limited to the question of whether or not William abused his power. I, and I think several other people, have been waiting for William to provide a detailed rationale for going against policy and consensus in this manner. As of yet, he has not given us one. He has been logged in and contributed to other parts of the project since this discussion began, and is clearly aware of the discussion (having already commented in it). Since he's such a big net positive for the wiki, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him one more day to provide a detailed analysis of his rationale. If he doesn't, then i'll take that as a refusal to do so. Unfortunately, in that case, I would have to take the incident up to ARBCOM. I really hope he gives a reasoning, because I don't want to report him to arbcom. As I have said several times, I have a lot of respect for William, and I don't want to slay one of the last WikiDragons left. I'll leave a message on his talk page, in case he is no longer watching this discussion. Firestorm ^Talk 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. It is completely possible to think that this deletion wasn't a hot idea and should be undone without having a lynching. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be taken very seriously is he doesn't apologize and promise not to pull this stunt in the future. I did ask him point blank at his talkpage about this. I got back a somewhat cryptic response, but it seemed like he agreed not to do this type of stuff again. See for yourselves: User talk:William M. Connolley#Question.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that he deleted it anymore, it is now that he has not provided an explanation of it. There are quite a few people here that want to know why he did it, and he isn't telling us beyond a non-rationale about edit warring. Firestorm ^Talk 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided my reasonning: Edit warring disaster area. Do you want me to invent some other reasons? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re: deletion policy WP:DP"If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to . . ." seems to allow quite a bit of room for admins to use their own judgment when deleting pages. wc did just that. another admin undeleted, and now there should be a discussion at deletion review if someone wishes to nominate it. there should not be a 'call for his head' as this discussion seems to be doing. there seems to be a tremendous lack of good faith here. untwirl (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl is a single purpose account, who has consistently engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors (ie WP:NPA) rather than discussing article content, while finding nothing but good in those who support this user's editing goals. Considered in that context, this accusation of "lack of good faith" against other users becomes rather amusing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, what you wrote about Untwirl may be more applicable to some other editors involved in this thread incl. the one who started this discussion, and you probably knew this Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, one only needs to review your block log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMalcolm_Schosha) and this comment in particular to discover who is "engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors." if you have a problem with the content of my comment, please say so. otherwise, i'll thank you to cease with your repeated attacks against me personally. untwirl (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When one of my daughters was in college, she had a friend who's grandfather was one of the Chicago Seven. That was far from his only arrest and trial either. Do you think that make him a bad person? And even if his crimes had been nothing better than break-ins, do you think that mean he would never deserve respect, and forever treated with disrespect? (And remember what occurs here is only wiki-crimes, and being sent into wiki-exile means nothing outside of WP.

Personally, I think that was a good friend for my daughter to have, and I have a lot of respect for her grandfather...even though I do not agree with many of his views, nor all of his acts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

admin noticeboards arent the place for personal stories or blog entries. stick to content. untwirl (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) replied on your talk page. untwirl (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, remember when I brought a complaint here about edit warring, and you and another user, filled up a lot of space on this page with accusations about my bad character? That had nothing to do with the complaint, because I had not been edit warring. (If you do not remember I can give the link.) Why do you think it was good for you to do what you did then at length, and think it bad for me to now do something similar in in brief?

here is the discussion you misrepresent. [29] in it, you accused another editor of edit warring on an article in which your first three edits ([30],[31],[32]) were to revert info from the lead without discussion. i made no accusations about your character, only listed your actions. take this back to your talk page, please. untwirl (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the diffs you supplied make it clear that I was not edit warring, and that I tried to resolve the dispute by moving the disputed material to the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Deleting against consensus -IS- wrong, but everyone deserves a bad day. An admin who makes one definitely wrong decision and backs down is a lot less worrisome than one who regularly makes questionable decisions and doesn't. If admins try to be better than human and never do the former, they risk becoming the latter.
(I'm not trying to make coy insinuations; I have absolutely no one in mind wrt the latter hypothetical admin in the comparison.) arimareiji (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that William has not backed down, has not expressed any regret, and has not said that he will refrain from doing the exact same thing in the future. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if an article that is plagued by constant edit warning warrants a deletion, Connolley thinks it is a valid reason and he has provided that as his rationale three times now. *If* it is not a valid reason as determined by Wiki policies, then one admin, preferably BlackKite, can reveal that to him and to ask him to refrain from making such deletions. I think the deletion was made in good faith, and it should be treated as such. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's an administrator. Surely he would understand the reaction from deleting an article days after it was declared keep. If he didn't see the AFD then I could perhaps empathize (sinner here), but not responding to valid criticism is a cause for concern. I don't want blood or any form of punishment whatsoever, but it would be settling to in the least promise you won't delete the article without an afd or an extremely justifiable reason. Normally good faith mistakes are followed by an apology, concession, compromise, or understanding...William has done none of the above. However, I think it's safe to say he won't touch the article again but that's my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the permanent block of Afroghost. My understanding is that when editors are being disruptive, such as vandalizing articles, the intent is to end the disruption and is not punishment. I remember, in a discussion I had with El_C about an IP user who had vandalized an article I was editing, El_C gave the IP user a five minute block which solved the problem. It was my understanding that it was El_C's common practice to start with very short blocks, and extend them only if that was demonstrated to be necessary to end the disruptive activity. Perhaps if the block of Afroghost had been one week, or one day, or five minutes that would have been enough to end the disruptive activity. If an administrator starts with a permanent block, it is impossible to know if less would have been enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is weird. From experiences Afroghost has been a very reliable editor, perhaps he was simply reverting vandals? Pblock seems unjustified without prior blocks, unless he was a sock/hacker/nothing edited-related. Did someone post a complaint yet? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection ended

The protection of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has ended and already there have been some deletions of sourced material without discussion. I hope that some administrators will put the article on there watch list. It might be better if the article had its protection extended, pending enough discussion on the talk page to assure there will not be edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Mkil at Boxrec.com

da

Vintagekits

Vintagekits and I seem to be having a problem. I think he's making biased edits and he thinks I'm removing referenced material. That's fine, content disputes are normal. However, his actions during this dispute involve things like calling me an "idiot," a "dick,"[33] referring to my edits as "moronic"[34], "fuck ups" [35], "ill-informed bullshit"[36], etc.

I bring this up because he's had a long history on this site and has been blocked in the past for similar name-calling. He's also been blocked because of his problems dealing with Irish issues. The issue at the heart of our content dispute involves Irish nationalism -- i.e., it's about a boxer who was born in Northern Ireland and whether or not he's Irish or British. In fact, it's not even about that, it's about how a website reports that. He uses unreliable references to push his point-of-view and, when I attempt to clean it up, I get vitriol from him.

I'm tired of dealing with his profanity and his inability to see his biases. He seems to have been unblocked on the condition that he play nice with others. I certainy don't feel he's doing that in this case.MKil (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

This discussion here will give you some indication as to what kind of brick wall i have been banging my head against. Profanity was entirely justified.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More background here - my head hurts!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, being civil is not optional. Kevin (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply calling a spade a spade, I stayed as civil as possible - read the moronic arguments of the editor for evidence as to why he IS moronic. Maybe you should be more worried about an editor that refuses to adhere to wikipedia editing rules then focus of some extremely minor as this. Sheesh sometimes I wonder!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get it, so I'll be clear. The next time you refer to another editor as a moron, dick, idiot etc you will be blocked. Regardless of any perceived provocation, you must remain civil. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a little perspective my man - look at what I am dealing with - someone who REFUSES to abide by editing rules. What are we hear for? What are you going to do about that?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his block log. He's been blocked a number of times for doing this type of thing. He's even been blocked indefinitely and then reinstated. How many times can he continue to flout the rules?MKil (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Vintagekits, you know that kind of language doesn't serve you well; it gets people's backs up without solving the problem. You wouldn't appreciate it at all if someone called you a moron if you made a bad edit. On the other hand, MKil, that is indeed a poor edit. The information was correct as of a specific date and time, and the more correct edit would be to include a phrase such as "in 1996, the site received xxx visitors a day..." Removing the information was not the preferred option here. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not just today its been going on for months with this guy. this is his idea of a good article, this is mine. How can you deal rationally with someone who says ""If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." - that is more uncivil than any swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you're absolutely right IMO (those unfortunate enough to remember 2007 will know this isn't something I say very often). I really can't see what the fuss is about here. – iridescent 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll admit that it could have been a better edit. When someone mentions that civilly, I can see the point. However, I don't believe I broke a rule here. I do believe that Vintagekit broke a variety a rule in this instance and in the past. Why do administrators continue to enable his bad behavior? I tried to discuss it civilly with him, I presented a compromise option, and he ignores it and continues to push his point of view using his unreliable references.MKil (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Is this your idea of a civil and rational discussion - I see one person trying to sort stuff out and once person basically saying "f@ck you".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who resorted to name calling there, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

However, let's take the BoxRec edits. In my version, which I wrote after a discussion with you, I accurately and without bias describe the issue: "Some users have also raised issues with how certain boxers' nationality is represented on the site. For instance, there is a dispute over whether John Duddy, who is from Northern Ireland, should be listed as being from Ireland or the United Kingdom." Your version is this, in which you use "references" to support your opinion, not source your facts: "The Boxrec team changed the nationality of Irish boxer John Duddy to British on their boxing record database after it was initially listed as Irish.[8][9] A number of Boxrec members raised the issue with the owner of the website and Boxrec were contacted by members of "Team Duddy" to inform them that Duddy held an Irish passport. However, the owner of the website, John Sheppard, refused to accept Duddy's nationality as Irish.[8][5] A petition was then created objecting to Boxrec's refusal to amend Duddy's record.[5]" That gives undue weight to a minor controversy and takes sides in the issue. Why not a simple description like mine, which is free from bias?MKil (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I give up! its impossible to have a straight discussion with the guy - impossible! One subject to the next without a thing ever getting resolve - he hurts my brain I tells ya!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is my version an accurate description of the issue? Is there any bias in it? Two simple questions. No need for profanity or dramatics.MKil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

There is a time and place for that discussion - this is not it. Lord give me strength!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to have this discussion with you elsewhere, but your reply, when you weren't swearing, was that your insertions had references so they cannot be touched. You refused to discuss the content of your edits and instead relied on your interpretation of the rules (which I feel are incorrect, btw) to avoid addressing your bias issues. So when and where do you want do discuss the actual issues? I'm happy to take it to mediation.MKil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Hence the reason that I took the issue to the Boxing Project so that I could get other editors opinons on the issue. Seriously man you need to understand the VERY basics of how wikipedia works before you start opening your mouth. Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS and then you will have the basics. I'm now finished here. Can some moderator please take this guy under their wing and explain to him some of the procedures before I throw my computer out of the window.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a parole when VK rejoined the community? - I am uncertain if it were to do with areas of editing or use of colourful terminology (or both). Has it lapsed or been put aside? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed long ago. – iridescent 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK's editing of boxing related articles was also never part of any parole. - Galloglass 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions Vk is currently under is listed here. The ring-fenced civility parole, resulting in an immediate block, has expired. That said, a reversion to aggressive, abusive language of the past should not be tolerated either. We don't want to go back there. Rockpocket 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I purposefully tried to avoid the guy with this edit - gimme a frickin break for god sake!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of people are supporting your content edits, but no-one is agreeing with the way you addressed the other editor. That should tell you something. If you find yourself getting wound up, you can always turn of the computer and walk away. Rockpocket 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the discussion before this report and see if there was any abuse and see who was trying to approach the subject in a rational and policy based manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read it all and don't really see the problem with your version of the article. However, the very fact that this discussion is at ANI should tell you that your method of dealing with the disagreement was ineffective. Believe it or not, admins deal with fucking morons on a daily basis, yet how many of them do you see being called that? Very little, because doing so tends to be counter-productive. How many times is this going to happen before you get it in that skull of yours: using abusive or incivil language is only going to backfire on you! Rockpocket 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that I went about it right - I disengaged with the guy, posted on the Boxing Project page but then the editor that has the balls to report me hounds be on my talkpage just because I wont get into an argument with him. If I used some of what you think was incivil language then it was deserved at the time and then I dropped the discussion where it belonged in the trash!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are keen to remind MKil of our policies (on his talk page: Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules.), so heed you own advice and abide one of our key rules yourself: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There is no acceptable justification for calling him an idiot just because he has a content disagreement with you. Drop that sort of language, and people will help you deal with content issues, continue to use it and you become the problem. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If have been perfectly civil with the guy for months on end, and constantly trying to inform him of wikipedia policy with regards editing articles - I care a lot more about the content of articles then the odd fuck, bollocks or moron on a talk page - great your priorities straight! If you spent even one eight of this effort advising User:MKil of wiki editing policy then we wouldnt have this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Section deleted, unacceptable for undue weight and soapboxing reasons. Find something else to write about and be nice to each other unless you want a time-out. Thatcher 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's nice to have a rational and neutral admin come out of retirement to give his opinion and then scurry off - I'll be reverting your illogical edit in 10,9,8,7,6,5............--Vintagekits (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scurry off? Excuse me for not being online 24 hours a day. Thatcher 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems Vintagekits is trying to get me in trouble for bringing his uncivil behavior to light. He has reported me for violating 3RR [37], which I certainly did not do. The edits I made were not reversions but attempts to clean up the article and make it more accurate. And, violating the procedure for reporting me, he failed to notify me on my talk page of such a report. As his complaints below about me illustrate, it's clear he's trying to shift the focus from his uncivil habits.

His response to Thatcher (calling his/her edits "illogical") and his vendetta against me should illustrate that Vintagekits still has problems playing nice with people here.MKil (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I am merely hightlighting your bad behaviour - in a perfectly civil manner to I might add. Have a read of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions to see what exceptions there are to WP:3RR - an attempt "to clean up the article and make it more accurate" is not one of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They weren't reverts, for one. One was a revert and the other three were edits designed to clean up the article and remove your original research and outdated references.

You ask below what opinion you are promoting. You have called the labeling of John Duddy as a Brit a "racist" action on the Boxrec talk page. Your views on Irish nationalism are well known. You've been forbidden to edit certain Irish-related topics because of your trouble keeping a cool head on the issue. Your action pushing your opinion on the minor BoxRec dispute about John Duddy illustrates your trouble keeping your biases free on this issue.

I'd invite anyone to look at the edit history of BoxRec. A variety of editors have tried to remove or modify the section in dispute. Vintagekits always returns to insert it. Only he seems to want it in. Most other users recognize that it is not only non-notable but biased and sourced with unreliable sources.MKil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

• Vintagekits has been pushing this soapbox issue since October 2006, according to the talk page. Respectfully suggest he has made this article into a Troubles-related article under the terms of his probation, by his own persistent actions. His probation does not appear to be an Arbcom sanction, who enforces it? Thatcher 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Soapboxing is about promoting ones own opinion - what opinion am I trying to promote?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your opinions about Irish nationality. Or perhaps merely your own opinions about the unreliability of this web site. Wikipedia is not your soapbox nor your coatrack. You can't tell us that the web site is unreliable, nor are you allowed to prove it by pointing to inconsistent data on the web site itself (as that is original research). You may report what reliable sources have said about the web site. Your sources to date include anonymous people posting to the web site's internal forums and to the editor of a blog for a particular boxer. Neither of those are reliable sources, and you have been told this on the article talk page since 2006. 2-1/2 years is more than enough proof that you are trying to use the article as a soapbox for something. Thatcher 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explain this before but you are choose to ignore it (Thatcher is an apt handle for you and possibly explains your bias) - it is not my opinion that Duddy is Irish OK!, it is everyones except BoxRec.

You choose to ignore the validity of the sources provided - Thatcher by name and nature!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Duddy's nationality is not at issue. The issue is that the web site is claimed to have problems with reliability of national identification of its boxers. For which proposition you have offered original research and a single blog posting. Drop it. And by the way, making ethnic insinuations based on my user name does not help your cause. Thatcher 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No YOU are missing the point. Also "ethnic insinuations based on my user name" - I dont know or even care what ethnicity you are. This is becoming moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you are violating both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA by commenting on Thatcher's user name, and no amount of "it's not ethnic" wikilawyering can obfuscate that - and that's before we ever get to your use of the word "moronic". Lapsed parole or no, if I see any sign of continued personal attacks from you, I'll be issuing a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer some questions, the current ban is a community topic ban due to expire this coming may, enforceable by any administrator. This particular issue does NOT fall into the formulation of the topic ban. That having been said, it isn't particularly exemplary behavior by vintage kits, but I think the behavior problems will be better handled if everyone walks away from it for a day or so. If people don't, then corrective actions will be justified. I'll get into the underlying issue within the next day or so if I can, if y'all can wait until then.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Why wait upon Tznkai? The underlying issue is incivility - which is policy. Below that is vk's failure to accept responsibility and admins' failure to respond to that. An admin (any admin) should block vk for 24 hours for incivility. Next time it should be 48, etc. Meanwhile a list should be created of "unparliamentary"/incivil terms. Such as moron, dick, idiot, bullshit, bollocks, frickin, fuck, fcuk. Automatic blocks would follow any breach. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But, erm ... the majority of those terms are not uncivil. We do, after all, have WP:FUCK and WP:DICK. It's all in the usage of the word, and not the word itself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But, I digress ... the user shows no concept of desiring to understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL .. in fact, they have the nerve to justify their actions. If you were in your church/temple/mosque/religious meetingplace, and the leader said something you disagreed with, would you stand up and say "look you fucking idiot, that's pure BULLSHIT"?? No, you wouldn't because that's not what you do in that community. Wikpedia is no different - it's a community,and incivility is not valid. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Standing on principle is fine and all, but isn't particularly useful for problem solving. I'm looking at this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If you're intent on getting an admin to punish Vintagekits' uncivil behavior, you'll have to wait for someone else. If however, you want someone to at least try to remove the behavior pattern and solve the underlying content dispute, I will attempt to do justthat, later today, if at all possible. Either way, even a proper handling of incivility needs to weigh in the context (it is context that gives meaning to words, if I say "you fucking bastard" to my best friend after he beats me in cribbage, no one should blink twice, if I say "You're utterly incompetent" after someone has spent two weeks lovingly crafting a new article, I'm being far more incivil) and also look at ALL parties - all of which takes time, time I have not been able to spend yet. Its also worth noting that since the latest version of Vintagekits' community ban, we have had few problems, and he's more or less been staying out of trouble, or so it seems to me. That too, has to be weighed in.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you are right, I shouldnt have blown up and the guy no matter what the provocation and circumstances were. Sorry about that - obviously I have calmed down as it was a few days ago but you can just see from the reasons that I got from MKil how difficult it was to deal with him. I dont accept that I have been trying to push a POV into the article - I do accept I was trying to include the issue but I also included comments about many positive aspects of the site. Like I said in this post - have look at the way it was before I got a hold of the site - MKil seems very interested in the article but never has made a positive contribution to it.

To Thatcher, sorry for snapping at you to, heat of the moment and all that, you were just doing your job and gave your own fair assessment of the sitiuation - no hard feelings - I will now back away from the article and find improved sources. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that a lot. I did look at Lexis/Nexis for news sources about Boxrec.com; I found hundreds of times where they were mentioned as a source but no stories about them. This does not mean there aren't any reliable sources about the nationality problem, but they may be hard to find. Thatcher 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It appears it is only certain editors who get blocks or even have blocks considered for civility as can be seen below in the post I made about Attacks and harassment. Can't see anyone scrolling down the page to call for sanctions against editor who has made them. Seems like double standards, either every breach gets the same treatment or then it is seen to be cherry picking who to sanction. BigDunc^Talk 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to compromise with you yet every time you have reverted me and accused me of being a troll. You resort to high dramatics and appeals to wikipedia rules when they suit you. The reason no-body took action on this is because you deserved to be called a lot worse than a gobshite frankly, and your determined to drag this thing through the mud rather than reach the compromise I am CONSTANTLY trying to get with you. Admins can see that my last dealing with you before you reported me was a courteous explanation as to how I'm breaking the rules, which you reverted very childishly. You are judged by your conduct and if you cannot accept that by behaving in a duplicitious way you will get seperate treatment then you really need to examine the way you communicate with editors here. YOU MADE NO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF other than revert and threaten, its no wonder no admin has taken your complaint seriously. I really this thing to drop but Big Dunc is obsessed with this, he loves the drama and he loves winding me up for some inexplicable reason. I really hope this can be the last the post on the matter and that Big Dunc can stop from dragging his dirty linen through ANI. NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow ... all that incivility in such a small edit summary! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more for your amusement than anything, but take a look at what Big Dunc does when I try to resolve this infuriatingly pathetic problem he has with me - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=273416686&oldid=273415800 NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care/need to look: no editor has an excuse to be uncivil, especially in a permanent edit summary. His previous actions may explain incivility, but never excuse it. Honestly, as the situations is finally winding down, you flew in out of nowhere to add additional and unnecessary WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that VK has acted here with commendable patience and restraint. I am not so old or so delicate as to be wilted buy a little colourful language and I am always surprised by those who are. Whatever, it is now obvious that VK has decided to turn his back on those here, and I don't blame him. I hope that can be the end of this rather strange business. Giano (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent, replying to Vintagekits) Vintagekits, I appreciate that you're willing to apologize, especially to Thatcher. Wiki gets frustrating, and I'm sure most people around here will be able to forgive and forget. In the future, try not to transfer your invective from the user you are in conflict in to the administrators and other users trying to come in and settle the problem. Administrators, as a breed, tend to try to create peace (whether we are any good at it is another problem.) They are not ignoring the content issue as such, but trying to deal with the problem at hand - and it behooves you not to create a civility problem, so that the content issue IS the problem at hand. I myself will get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to endorse Tznkai's comments and join him in thanking VintageKits for apologizing. We all get worked up sometimes, or make mistakes, and too few of us are willing to say "I was wrong". But those words can smooth out a lot of conflicts. I suggest that a break would be good for all the involved editors, and then content issues will be easier to resolve.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MKil

This editor has been causing distruption for a while and it seems to have gone under the radar without a word being said.

1. With this edit he removes references and replaces it with a fact tag and also removes a sourced full section and replaces it with unsource OR. 2. Removes sourced material. And when asked to provide a source for the edit and to justify it he states that "If I think information is outdated, I can delete it. I don't have to get a reference to prove it". and when informed of the rules of Original Research he went on to say "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined."

This is a blatant breach of WP:OR and WP:CIVIL and is a threat to continue his disruptive editing pattern.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a response to a completely uncivil user who has been banned in the past for his abusive behavior. I stand by my edits to remove inaccurate and biased material from Wikipedia. If any of my edits were inaccurate or a violation of policies, let's discuss.MKil (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

1. What had my previous blocks (no block for my actions in over a year) got to do with your refusal to provide references?

2. You were told your edits where we original research, you said you didnt need to prove anything you said was right - that is a breach of WP:OR - have you ever read this policy?

3. You threatened to continue this distruptive pattern which is blockable in itself and was also a breach of WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy Tit-for-Tat isn't going to help you here, VintageKits. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy!!!! You are having a laugh right!! Its nothing of the sort. What do you want me to do just ignore the behaviour and blatant disruptive editing that has caused this BS? Address the issue or dont post!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a coarse person, and prone to describing low-quality content how I see it. I still manage to make myself understood without calling anyone a moron. I'm guessing you're at least as articulate as I am. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to comment on my actions then there is a discussion above - if you want to comment on MKil's actions do it here. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mkil, your behavior was just as uncivil as Vintagekits' was. Your tone was patronizing at best. At worst, it is exactly the same tone someone who was taunting Vintagekits' would take. I don't know you, so I havn't a clue whether that was deliberate, but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. Do not make it personal. Ever. Users under restrictions are NOT punching bags, and you need to take care not to even appear as if you are using them as such. I'll get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this view as well. Don't poke a bear and then complain about getting a reaction.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit my tone veered into the uncivil. For that I apologize to Vintagekits. However, I initially brought up his past behavior and block because I felt it offered an explanation of his behavior. Vintagekits is a very fine contributor to boxing articles. His work in beefing them up should be commended. But on the BoxRec article his edits were, in my view and the view of many other users, biased. His bias is clear, having accused the BoxRec editors of racism on the talk page. He is blocked from editing certain Irish pages because of his bias. His Irish nationalism is evident. This dispute involved an issue of Irish nationalism. When an otherwise fine editor spends three years trying to insert language that violates Wiki policy on original research and uses unreliable sources to reference his work, it seems to me that there is something else at play here. I didn't accuse him of bias or pushing his opinion lightly.

So I do apologize for using his block log to taunt him. Thing got heated and I stepped over the line.MKil (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

A comment on civility

I want to make something clear, in relation to my comments to Vintagekits and MKil above. Accusing other editors of biased editing is inflammatory, and in most contexts, uncivil. Excessive snarkiness is uncivil. Rudeness is uncivil. Being patronizing is uncivil. Being a jerk, dressed however well in gentility, is being uncivil. For whatever reason, many Wikipedians take their on wiki reputations as model Wikipedian writers very, very seriously. Telling these people that they are POV pushers, bringing up their block logs is uncivil. These acts are no less uncivil (or at least not in any way that matters) than the obvious swearing and name calling that happens. It is all unacceptable behavior, not because we're running a kindergarten, but because of how quickly uncivil behavior derails actual conversation.

In case it needs to be said, we administrators, as a breed, need to be able to deal with civility issues. Our job however, is to defuse the problems, not to sanction the users involved. In addition, when we can, we should help out with the content issues underlying, and if we can't do it ourselves, we should try to find someone who can, otherwise, what use are we really?--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and harassment

Could an admin have a look here please. This editor has been blocked for personal attacks or harassment before here and was told that the next block would be indefinite by admin Barneca. As you can see they have not heeded the warning with the latest attack on me. I asked Black Kite to have a word on his talk page which resulted in this breach of WP:CIVIL and maybe if you didn't act like a little schoolchild gobshite you wouldn't be called one. Honestly, reverting, ignoring, accusations etc. Thats not the traits of someone who isn't a gobshite. I'd say your a fifteen year old billy no mates still in school, the fat spotty kid in the corner with no real prospects. Thats certainly the way you act. Is that personal enough for you, you irritating, infuriating little man? Black Kite then warned this editor here but editor still puts the attack back on the Dunmanway Massacre talk page. BigDunc^Talk 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that it might not take a genius to work out that this is a newly created sock of a certain estabishled user.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman was being very reasonable with them here, and asked that they just stop the provocations. I am concerned that they do edit without logging in if this is the type of conduct they engage in. Troubles articles can be rough enough without IP's which are a consistant problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I kindly asked Big Dunc to explain how I'm breaching regulations with my post on the Dunmanway talk page. I want this thing to end but there is no justification for removing the original post. Big Dunc is refusing to discuss it, preferring to arbitarirly remove my post, despite the fact two admins have already looked at the post.

And no, I am not a 'sock' of an established user.

I have not personally attacked Big Dunc since receiving my warning, the last post I made to him was a request for him to explain how I'm breaking the rules. This reporting of me has been a waste of everyone's time. Can we not just let the matter drop, and allow the post to remain? No other admin see's a problem with it and Big Dunc is making a mountain out of a molehill. (Bear in mind he was extremely uncivil with me before I personally attacked him, for which I regret. He simply reverted my post without offering an explanation. When I ask him for one he reverts that post. I'm doing my best but it takes two to reach a compromise.) NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, take a look at my most recent edit to Big Dunc's talk page, which has inexplicably been removed. I cannot fathom his reason for reverting a very simple and what I thought to be a courteous question aimed at putting this thing to rest. I'm sure the admins we each have dragged in are tired of this so can we please just agree to disagree, this is such a waste of everyones time. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to be said that Dunc 'n' Domer are very difficult editors to deal with. They often act in concert, appear to "guard" certain articles, and are often quick to revert other editors, but slow to engage in discussion. They are quick to revert to WP guidelines and run to admins at the slightest thing, when genuine engagement in discussion is more likely to produce consensus. One user of whom I am aware (User:The Thunderer) has already been driven off WP by his frustration at this pair.

This post will probably provoke the usual keejerk NPA response by one or both of the two, but it is not intended as a personal attack: merely an explanation of the context in which editors on Irish topic are operating, and the resulting frustration which can provoke those with a short temper into making attacks such as that under investigation. The pair are very adept at using the WP guidelines (or, more particularly, their colossal knowledge of them) to their advantage.Mooretwin (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin, so you agree they were attacks on editors, and should stop. You might also consider removing this attack on me here and your accusations here the very one you were warned about here and given final warnings. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days by you. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. So stop now. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight on cue! What I think is that you should develop a thicker skin. Chill out. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies! Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what Admin's think? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When I see an editor call another editor a liar on an admin noticeboard, I want to see a diff, strikeout, or block. Posting on Mooretwin's talk accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Domer provided the diffs himself, but - anything for an easy life - I'll strike it out! Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you strike through your comments hereand here also thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, such drama. Can people just grow a pair and let things go? This is getting silly. NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you don't watch this page very often I take it? --GedUK  22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP spamming Self-injury

Resolved

 – At the usual spam discussion pages, nothing further to do here for now. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the following is taken from WP:AIV, after an IP persistently added their link to the Self-injury page. The page has been semi-protected by Agathoclea, however they expressed a desire to have this discussed. Specifically because the home page of the link they keep adding has a sentence that calls for volunteers to help them with their article. Any ideas what if anything should be done, I expect once the semi-protection has expired 77.222.x will just start spamming again but I might be wrong.

• 77.222.21.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Dynamic IP persistently adding non reliable source to external links of Self Injury article. 77.222.x IP has been warned through edit summaries but as a dynamic IP I don't know how to warn via talk space. There is also a comment at the start of the external links section taht warns against adding such links which the IP is also ignoring. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A more complex issue. The website in question actually refers to their efforts in getting linked on wikipedia and is calling for volunteers to help with "their article". This might need wider input so I think AN/I might be a venue and URL blacklisting might help. Agathoclea (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The link in question is http://www.e q i.org/cutting1.htm Cutting From the Teenager's Perspective. There is a discussion on the Self-injury talk page about which links are and are not appropriate, this certainly falls into the latter category. Jdrewitt (talk)

:I can't find the section on the external site that talks about linking to Wikipedia. --Ged UK (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I found it, it's on the main page, talking more about emotional intelligence rather than cutting specifically.--Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A link to http://www.e q i.org/ is also persistently being added to the Emotional Intelligence article by 72.222.x and is being removed each time. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also being added by Irafromhungary, no doubt a sockpuppet of 77.22.x ? Jdrewitt (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did spend a little time on the site in question yesterday and found that there was an agenda to a)control a particular article on wikipedia and b) to get links to their site onto a range a wikipedia articles. A link search also suggested that they are quite successful. My semiprotecting the article was only a shortterm measure until a better solution can be found. The intention of the website are definetly public service but are they WP:RS and is spamming the way to promote? Agathoclea (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're a relaible source. They certainly appear laudable, but they are just using WP as a promotional tool. I totally understand why, from their point of view, but this is clearly spamming. We should be making it clear to User:Irafromhungary and others about the relevant policies, and remove any such links. If it continues, I would have thought some continued reminders/warnings within the {{uw-spam}} sequence would be the best way forward, then if necessary, blocks. Perhaps an email to the site from an admin might be a good idea clarifying what we're all about? --Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I see this added indeed by quite some in the 72.222.xx.yy range, and some other IPs which seem close, and more IPs (but also regulars use this site?)
• 79.143.100.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • uses more domains.
• 79.143.100.253 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • uses more (2) domains.
• 85.96.85.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 77.85.67.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 85.94.107.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 85.94.122.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 77.222.21.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 77.222.20.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 77.222.21.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 85.55.3.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Irafromhungary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Would XLinkBot be a solution to keep the site a bit clean, or should it be blacklisted? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this maybe a cross-wiki case, I'll report it to User:COIBot/XWiki/e q i.org]] for the IPs, all will be in a linkreport in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/e q i.org. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Need protected redirect created

<redacted alternate title - check history> is locked, presumably to prevent the creation of a one-event biography. I have created an article on the incident itself, which is well-referenced. I need an administrator to redirect <redacted alternate title - check history> to YouTube cat abuse incident. It can remain protected as there should be no reason to have a full bio on this person. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might fall under BLP - certainly when a minor is the focus of an article we should be very careful about including their name on Wikipedia due to the high visibility of articles here on the web. I'd oppose creation of this redirect and I've temporarily redacted mention of his real name here (and will do so on the article) until their is consensus that this isn't a BLP problem and it's appropiate to include his real name and/or redirect it. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, BLP nightmare, I wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft pole. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see this as a BLP nightmare. Names were reported in reliable news sources, so, if the event is appropriate to document, so are the names, minor or no. The question to me is whether this article falls under WP:NOT#NEWS, which I think it does.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident‎, fyi. Given that the alleged perpetrator has not yet been convicted, if I understand correctly, then we are way into BLP-vio territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye on Cruelty to animals, there was some recent activity there that looking back may be related. Verbal chat 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not always appropiate to include names Kww, it's been established by consensus, for example, that it's not appropiate to include the Star Wars Kid's real name in the article, even though we can easily find reliable sources for it. Exxolon (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight very hard to change that, even though I disagree at heart. I see a significant difference between "acting like a doofus, and not realizing how hard people would laugh", and being arrested for torturing small animals. I can at least understand a desire to protect the former, but not the latter.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it become clear that the article about the incident will be kept, we will do well to discuss the inclusion of the name at the article's talk page (with a direction thereto at RFC/B); if a consensus is borne out for inclusion, as probably it will be, we might then create a redirect. Joe 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice and User:Orangemarlin at orthomolecular medicine

MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) Can someone please deal with this? I'm tired of his continued personal attacks against me and other editors. In WP:AGF, I have made several attempts to help him understand WP:MEDRS, one of the basic principles for NPOV of medical articles, but instead he decides that attacking me personally is the best route to take. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does rather seem that MichaelCPrice is very insistent on adding synthetic material to that article, and is being excessively aggressive in shouting down those who insist on reliable independent sources to support the inferences he chooses to draw. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, he's taken to implying I'm lying again. He's using all of his tendentious editing skills to try to get his way, and he's not even close to getting anyone to support his POV. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not one of adding synthetic material to the article. I have mostly given up on trying to modify the article since it immediately gets reverted. Instead I've confined myself to the talk page, as we are meant to, to resolve these issues. The problem is that we have an editor, Orangemarlin, who has unlimited self confidence and will not accept any criticism of any form without seeing it as a personal attack. He claims that he is "completely NPOV", which is is absurd since everyone has biases, conscious or unconscious, and that he never dismisses anything (refuted by the false statements in the edit comments which indicate that studies are rejected through ignorance or arrogance). Instead of debating ths substantive issues he claims that ths issue is one of science versus anti-science, that I'm a creationist etc etc.

The claim that I'm alone in my view of Orangemarlin's POV pushing is not true. See this talk page thread. Please note that Orangemarlin claimed the neutral thread title "Recent edits by Orangemarlin" was uncivil and changed it to "Recent NPOV edits by Orangemarlin". --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• User:Orangemarlin's claim that "he's not even close to getting anyone to support his POV" is false as I support User:MichaelCPrice's contention that a respectable journal such as Scientific American is a reasonable source for our articles, subject to usual considerations of common sense. User:Orangemarlin's own position on sources seems weak since, as I understand it, this matter started with his attempt to give undue weight to a report of a single study. Bringing the matter here seems to be forum shopping and/or gaming the system. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• The beauty of Wikipedia is that simply clicking on that link you made to the Scientific American article makes it clear that 'Scientific American' is not a 'respectable journal' but a 'popular science' publication. Nevard (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yet, according to WP:MEDRS 'Scientific American' is still a reliable source if used with commonsense and good judgement. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. It says Civility issues → Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (watch · +section). What's really ironic about this thread is that soon after starting it, Orangemarlin called me a "CAM potion pusher" at the OMM talk page [38], even though all I'd just added was a 2005 Wiley book and I'd came down on his side in the synthesis issue. Orangemarlin uses vicious personal attacks far more than most people. When he last brought civility/tendentious editing issues to ANI a couple weeks ago (thread), I pointed out that he wasn't being civil with Michael either and that this isn't the place for civility issues. I also pointed out to his history of extremely tendentious editing and misusing ANI. The synthesis issue is best discussed at the talk page, at the WP:SYN noticeboard, or through a RfC.

Also, on the issue of synthesis: there are currently several references in the article which do not discuss OMM but are rather on general vitamin supplementation. If we're going to discuss vitamins in general like this, then it's fair to give a balanced overview. Currently the article is pretty fair: we have the sentence "research on nutrient supplementation in general suggests that some nutritional supplements might be beneficial, and that others might be harmful" citing a good article on the topic. The current debate is over whether we should mention the current vitamin D controversy. It wouldn't be that big of a deal to say "some researchers believe vitamin D requires supplementation,[ref] while others don't.[ref] Wikipedia works through compromise. II | (t - c) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise as in "some scientists state that the moon is made of green cheese, others don't". See WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but not with some others. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More Shalom socking

Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) is at it again. As any action on my part will be taken as evidence of my part in the Evil Cabal Conspiracy Against Him and any inaction will be taken as Proof That I Finally Realise He's Been Right All Along, can someone uninvolved (there must be someone) look over the latest sock's history and revert/block/ignore as they see fit? N.B. – AFAIK he's not technically violating WP:SOCK here as his main account's edits don't overlap with this one. – iridescent 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Not familiar with the circumstances of Shalom but the last edit was rather superfluous. -- Samir 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Either Shalom or an impersonator. User:Kivel/draft needs deleting. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's I. I endorse the block and expected it. I'm not sorry for hijacking Iridescent's editnotice. She's not sorry for falsely accusing that I harassed people in real life. The world moves on.

See User talk:Kivel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.165.121 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

someone start an RFc on User: Kuebie

Lengthy text redacted, here is the diff. I have informed this user how to start RfC's if they so desire -- Samir 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert warning

Ben1985 (talk · contribs) - An account doing nothing but reverting itself. Anyone else smell an impending attack?  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite probably, yes. I've often thought though that the self-revert warning should run to more than one level. Might be easier in cases like this to get a block. --GedUK  21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

could just be a new user messing about. I'd keep an eye on it, but it doesn't seem like too big of a deal, IMO. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Irregular move of the article Països Catalans by User:Martorell

• Martorell (talk · contribs)

In the last 48 hours this user has personally decided to move the article Països Catalans to Catalan Countries up to 3 times witout following the steps explained in the Wikipedia:Requested moves page.

• 1st move: [39]
• 2nd move: [40]
• 3rd move: [41]

This article is about a political/linguistical catalan concept with quite some similarities to the german anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia.

May I inform that this matter has been subject of thousands of kb for the last years in the talk page (here, here, here, here and here , making it a much controversial subject

Most of the users participating agreed to call it Països Catalans as proven by their messages here in the article's talk-page in order to achieve some kind of consensus so as to remove a NPOV tag (if I recall correctly).

User:Martorell as been warned today in the article's talk-page and in his own user-page about having to follow the steps in order to request potentially controversial moves in order to keep some civilized manners towards the rest of the wikipedia users. His answer... another move! He has even modified my very own words in the message ([42]), which is strictly forbidden by wikipedia rules.

For this reason, I'm asking for help so as to prevent this user from continuing moving the article's name. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a restoration of the name used until this user and User:Mountolive turned it into controversial. But both they moved the page, altough a consensus was not reached about the title page. I think they should first make a request on talk page about moving the title, according to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I think that the actually irregular move is being made by them. Also they have not offered any external sources supporting their opinion about usage of "Països Catalans" in English and, in the other hand, there's a lot of sources using "Catalan Countries" in English. Have a nice day. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PD: There's a zillion of Kb. because they used to push intransigent POVishes in all the subjects related to Catalan and Valencian matters, but never gained consensus.

There is a HUGE talk page debate on this, which was solved with apparent consensus for the article be named Països Catalans. II am not an expert in wikijargon, but I dont think "consensus" means "unanimity". Some users advocated for using Països Catalans such as user:owdki, user:boynamedsue and user:physchim62 (so it is not only Maurice and myself, as you keep saying again and again, for some reason you and God only know). There were other users (user:SMP) disagreeing. User:Dúnadan was opposed to call it Països Catalans, even though it didnt seem a staunch refusal at times (see talk page for details).

The most telling of this story is that, if I am not mistaken, it was eventually moved to Països Catalans by a user which is normally closer to Joanot's line than, say, my own's. I am talking of user:Xtv (who is also a member of the "wikiproject catalan-speaking countries", like all those opposing this move). So, please, at least refrain from lying and saying that it is only a thing of Maurice or myself.

The reality check (talk page) is there for you to peruse it, learn something from other people's point of view and even use it in a constructive way, if you will. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it a democratic votation about wich POV should show in the article? According to WP:V you should give some kind of external source supporting somewhat "Països Catalans has no exonym in English". I understand that "non-existent" things can't be verified, but since I've given several sources that shows in English the name of "Catalan Countries", this democratic sort of POV is not acceptable. But as it dislikes so you say it is not "reliable" for you, but, again, you are not giving any external reference or sources supporting this lack of trust claimed by you. Instead of it, you ban edits of mine at the very first chance. Your attitude (together with User:Maurice27), again, and again, mainly from Valencian Community article is banning all editings from Catalan-speaker users, since a lot, many lot of times. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:RMHED

RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be on a trolling spree. Making sickening jokes at Deaths in 2009, single-handedly changing speedy deletion criteria without consensus. There's probably more in the edit history. Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope the end isn't near :( seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He's already violated 3RR at Template:Db-g11. Considering RMHED has two prior blocks -- including one very recent one -- for 3RR violations, I have issued a 72 hour block. An editor this experienced should know better. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (Addendum, the fourth edit fell just outside of the 24-hour period. I still think this violates the spirit of the rule, as well as the "Not an entitlement" clause. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking? — Aitias // discussion 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That was taken into account, as well as the editor's past history (both productive and counter-productive.) caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be thick skinned. Will it really benefit the project to indef him?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me an arsehole

RMHED just called me an arsehole. Could someone please extend the block accordingly? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

eh, I thought we kinda agreed sometime a while back not to extend blocks for blocked users venting on their talk page? –xeno (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh calm down. Editors routinely vent on their talk pages after a block, maybe take it off your watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno, but if it goes back I'll happily reblock to prevent talk page edits. As someone else said, a proper break would be useful. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Though, violating WP:NPA is entirely inacceptable. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its unacceptable but no need to exacerbate the situation. Thick skin and such. –xeno (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) And again. Could someone please intervene? — Aitias // discussion 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kevin locked the talk page... Hopefully he come to his senses when the block expires... (From the looks of it, he's trying to commit wikicide). –xeno (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed his rollback privledges because of related conduct, endorse the original block, abstain on any block abstention, I abstain on the appropriateness of the protection, but note that RFPP should be updated with the latest.--Tznkai (talk)

I think Aitais needs to get a thicker skin if he's going to carry on kicking a man when he's down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kicking a man when he's down? That makes it sound as if somehow Aitais is the culprit. RMHED can only blame himself for his block, and his behaviour before and after the block was uncalled for. Aitais has got nothing to do with it. Aecis·(away) ^talk 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias is deliberately goading RMHED both here (which is what led RMHED to call him an arsehole) and on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it qualifies as goading, but I do think that Aitias should disengage, if only out of caution. (I will do so as well if asked)--Tznkai (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only person responsible for RMHED's behaviour is RMHED himself. Noone else can be held accountable for it. Aecis·(away) ^talk 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disengagement sounds like a good idea. Is your presence helping WP salvage a good but flawed editor, or is it making things worse?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RHMED is now IP socking on his page, following the block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sounds quite nice, but unfortunately I'm even harassed by him at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, at this point I wouldn't oppose an indef. Looks like he wants to go down in flames. Wizardman 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in perfect agreement with Wizardman here. — Aitias // discussion 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't benefit the project. I think we need to let him cool down.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would obviously prevent further harm. — Aitias // discussion 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So would locking down the whole project. And Aitias, you are not what I would call ... unbiased here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wants to go down in flames" apparently means, "dares to defy the hivemind groupthink." Every time I think I've seen the lowest nadir of Wikipedia, I am proven wrong. As Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up." -- SmashTheState (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering he's now randomly carpetbombing articles just to be a dick, one wonders why you bothered posting that. One really does. HalfShadow 03:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) (edit conflict) Now he is even vandalising articles: [43], [44], [45], [46]. — Aitias // discussion 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RTV request

RHMED is now (seemingly) cycling IPs to request an RTV. –xeno (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's every user's right. But I really think we should defer consideration of this one for, say, oh, I don't know,, 72 hours?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That has stopped already. Now he vandalises articles. — Aitias // discussion 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course you had absolutely nothing to do with winding him up to that point? DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Aitias, it was suggested that you disengage from this discussion. I think it was a pretty good suggestion. Admins are perfectly capable of monitoring RHMED's actions. Thank you for your concerns and bringing this to our attentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Block extended

Block extended to a month. Venting on a talk page is to be expected, but block evasion off that talk page to make edits which are tantamount to vandalsim or personal attacks is completely unacceptable. If this continues I'll block the account indefinitely. I would also appreciate it if we would refrain from granting his request to vanish until he asks to do so in without vandalizing. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We might need someone in here to sort out a brief rangeblock, at least until RHMED has a chance to sleep on it. –xeno (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected this fellow's page in case he wanted to discuss the block extension. I hope you are ok with that Xeno. I don't think rangeblocks are a good idea -- Samir 04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but his block still disallows talk page editing. At this point I'm not sure he's interested in civil discussion. –xeno (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't realize the block included inability to edit the talk page. IMO, RMHED should be allowed to edit his page in light of the rather long block extension. -- Samir 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly support allowing him to edit his talk page as long as he engages in civil discussion and not the unhelpful personal attacks that led to the protection in the first place. Really though, I think he needs to walk away for a while. –xeno (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the block, because I think that matches Samir's intent. If he abuses that privilege, we have a surfeit of interested admins who will modify the block. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I just followed up on this and it appears he's vandalizing the featured article of the day to make a personal attack on another editor? Am I seeing this correctly?--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... –xeno (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, looking at the combination of timings of posts here, to his talk page telling him of this thread, and his edits, I think the initial block was poor. DuncanHill (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with DuncanHill.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A poor block? This block was perfectly fine. In fact, it was a quite lenient one. RMHED was disrupting Wikipedia ([47], [48], [49]) and edit warring both on Deaths in 2009 and Template:Db-g11. — Aitias // discussion 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's as maybe, but could someone stuff a cork in the little bugger, please? HalfShadow 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Stuff a cork in the little bugger"? Could you be more homophobic, please? Maybe if you called him a knob-gobbling fudgepacker you could be a bit more offensive. -- SmashTheState (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. But since you're only here to tell us how badly we're screwing up, your opinion doesn't hold much water, so... HalfShadow

Please refrain from posting things which do nothing but to stir up drama. If you feel that halfshadow's affectation was homophobic, take it up with him on his talk page. And half, don't egg him on. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aec is away (talk · contribs) attempted to engage him in dialog on his talk page, and RMHED just summarily deleted his message, and the ANI courtesy note that followed. And what about the stuff on 2009 deaths? It seems pretty clear to me that he was fixing to have a spectacular meltdown, and I suppose in a sense, we played into his hand. But saying the block was poor? To prevent further edit warring and disruptive editing? I think not. –xeno (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is his talk page. The deletion means he read it, end of story. As for the rest, well, RHMED's vandalim is not excusable. But I believe the initial block was wrong, or at least wrongly applied. I can't approve of the way RHMED is showing his anger, but we could have done better by him by explaining clearly why he was being blocked (if the block was justified) and when the proferred reason was proved wrong, as it was not 3RR, evaluated in a different way than one which amounted to "oh, it is edit warring anyway".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Ignore the name here and no one would blink twice as blocking it as a "vandalism only account" RHMED screwed up, and screwed up big here, lets not pretend otherwise, no amount of aggravation in the world, (which I see none of at this point) justifies this kind of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"vandalism only account"? That implies that only vandalistic edits have been made by it. Understand? DuncanHill (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the right template have been applied? Sure. Does it remotely excuse the originating behavior? No. This is something that is simple and clear cut - don't fuck with article space.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he read it, but he did not heed the words, as he immediately continued to edit war. And technicalities like the fact that he didn't break the letter of the 3RR law don't change the fact that he broke the spirit. His actions were clearly disruptive and trying to characterize them any other way is ludicrous. –xeno (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hang on, he was informed of this thread at 01:34 I think - I don't see any edit warring after that. DuncanHill (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we owe correct explanations to those who are blocked under WP policies. RHMED knew he had not committed 3RR. The response probably should not have been "Well, you're guilty of something else then".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The initial block was perfectly fine. RMHED was clearly disrupting Wikipedia ([50], [51], [52]) and edit warring (Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Not_an_entitlement!) both on Deaths in 2009 and Template:Db-g11. — Aitias // discussion 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread alerted us to a reichstag climibing in progress. That the blocking admin pressed the wrong template doesn't change the fact that RMHED was plainly, obviously, clear as day, edit warring (multiple undo's in a row without edit summaries - that's edit warring) nor absolve him of liability. And then there's the extremely distasteful vandalism on the deaths article. Had RMHED discussed his block civilly on his talk page, he may have already been unblocked by now, but instead he attempted to wikilawyer out of it, followed by lashing out at another editor and then went supernova. This is perhaps what he wanted all along. We all retire in different ways, I suppose. I'm off for the evening. –xeno (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of openness, and for the protection of the project, a checkuser was run on User:RMHED to determine if there were any socks that could be used to continue the vandalism, and User:RasterFaAye was  Confirmed as being related to User:RMHED. This information is being released here after informing ArbCom, and on the suggestion of members of ArbCom. User:RasterFaAye has been blocked to prevent any more damage to the project, but the block should not be viewed as a ban; rather, it is a protective measure implemented until such time as things calm down. I am stating a priori that I will not contest an unblock by any admin who feels that the danger has passed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Right now, I feel we should be able to agree on three things.

• RMHED screwed up and needs to not edit for a while. We can argue the merits of blocks, unblocks, policy violations and templates, but we seem to all agree there is problematic behavior that is leading to an inability to edit productively.
• We, that is to say the community, value RMHED's contributions to the Wiki and would like him back so long as he is back to help out. (That whole anyone can edit thing)
• Nothing productive can be done by us now. Lets all walk away, and wait to see IF RHMED wants to come back before further discussion.

So says me anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is wise. However, if things stay quiet, we might want to consider an unblock after a few days. If he is gone, no harm done. If he is back and willing to help the project, great. If he is still in need of a rubber room, one can be supplied at short notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One last comment from me before I go to bed:

One can

• disrupt Wikipedia ([53], [54], [55])
• and edit war on two pages (Deaths in 2009, Template:Db-g11),
• can violate WP:NPA and edit war at his talk page ([56], [57], [58]),
• can continue doing this by evading his block ([59], [60], [61], [62], [63],
• can then start vandalising Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (again, evading his block; [64])
• can start vandalising WP:AN ([65])
• and the today's featured article ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70])
• and can create inappropriate attack pages ([71]) and his block is extended due to that and now you are seriously considering unblocking him? It's simply incredible. — Aitias // discussion 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't about law and order, man. We should be able to turn the other cheek. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

seems fine. I have no problem with an admin unblocking after a few days if they feel that some understanding has been reached. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the persistent egging and venting needs to stop. Yes, he screwed up, but so have others involved in this process. Blocking for "3RR" (as stated) is incorrect as it was edit warring. A vandalism-only account? Surely one cannot be so naive. seicer | talk | contribs 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I need to explain the vandalism only account comment better. My point was, that RHMED's edit was on face unacceptable vandalism, and if it wasn't for the fact he's a user with a history, any admin would have blocked him without blinking twice. That should show that the behavior was unacceptable past any need for warning, or such was my argument.--Tznkai (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there, and to be honest I'm surprised with the attitude of the "community" (read: those elements of the community who hang around ANI). As Tznkai says, if it was anyone else it would have been considered vandalism and they would have been indef blocked. Putting up with behaviour like that just because they are a regular only helps perpetuate the notion of cabalism; that it is one rule for those "in the know" who have been around for a certain period of time and one rule for everyone else. RHMED was provoked to a certain extent, yes. Does this explain his behaviour? Some of it. Does it excuse it? No. He was provoked and this (along with his previous interactions with the user in question) goes some way to explain why he did what he did, but not all the way. We're talking about a user who has tried the patience of "the community" (since those people who hang around ANI apparently constitute that now) time and time again, and who it now turns out has been socking. If we let him off then we're giving the impression that it is fine to sock, vandalise and make personal attacks on the basis that the user who initially blocked you didn't obey clause five of paragraph seven, subsection three of the relevant policy. Right to Vanish is for users in good standing; regardless of their contributions to the encyclopaedia that does not include users who sock and vandalise various articles as part of a vendetta against another user. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia. We take into account previous positive behavior because we hope to have RHMED's help in the project once again. Blocks are not punishment; they are to prevent harm to the project. If RHMED returns and indicates he will be constructive, we will welcome him back with open arms and with a spotlight under which every one of his edits will be scrutinized for quite some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We should make reasonable attempts to rehabilitate editors who are net benefits to the project. I also think it's fair to cut long-term, otherwise-collegial editors a bit of slack if they overreact to a one-off block.

However, there is a history of less-than-stellar editing habits and poor interactions with other editors here. About a month ago I cautioned RMHED – very gently – that he was drifting towards unacceptable (sarcastic, confrontational, rude) conduct in his interactions and commentary. (Conversation on his talk page here.) His responses were not promising, and I let the matter drop at the time — I figured that he would either cool down on his own or blow up on his own, and that further prodding wouldn't be helpful. It seems to me that he's chosen the 'blow up' option, with a large helping of suicide by admin thrown in the mix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The proverbial ball is in RMHED's court, and I'd like a clear and civil answer as to what he wants before we discuss: because this won't cut it.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If he has been socking for the past 37 days via RasterFaAye (talk · contribs · block log), why are we bothering? AGF cannot be stretched sufficiently to believe that someone can deliberately violate the official WP:SOCK policy for more than fives week for any reason less than malicious intent. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Was the socking disruptive? 'Cos there are plenty of users and admins with undeclared socks, and as long as they do not use them disruptively, no-one seems to care. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, the socking appears legitimate, was not disruptive, and the user followed the policy on WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification, but that information was not shared with other CUs on the list before the outbreak, thus the check and block. The alternative account has since been unblocked. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Avi. I hope that editors who have made negative assertions about the sock will consider striking them in the light of that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't follow. Blocks are against people, not accounts. That it came up in a CU means nothing--it is one of his accounts, he's blocked, why was that account unblocked? That's process-wonkery to an extreme degree. //roux   05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • My pleasure, Duncan. While on the topic, may I take the opportunity to remind everyone that for legitimate alternative accounts for which the editor does not wish have a public notice, a CU (including members of ArbCom) needs to be notified, and all EnWiki CUs should be made aware of the relationship as per WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's "suggested" and "encouraged". It's most definitely not compulsory; there are many perfectly good reasons one wouldn't trust Arbcom with potentially sensitive information. – iridescent 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • True. Point noted, and most of the time, there would be no way to find out. But, if during a legitimate checkuser run such an account is uncovered, it is harder to "assume good faith", no? -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Nonetheless, it is a CheckUser's responsibility to make that assumption, as well as to bear in mind the requirements placed upon CheckUsers not to disclose non-public personally identifying information, per the CheckUser policy and the Privacy policy. If disclosing the names of alternative accounts would reveal personal information that the person has decided not to reveal to anyone, then CheckUsers are required to respect that, no matter how much bad faith they are assuming. Iridescent is quite right. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we unblocked the sock. I don't think anything untoward was occurring with it, but it seems odd to unblock an account that will be reblocked for block evasion if it makes a single edit. Not sure what purpose that is going to serve. Protonk (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, if I understand Avi correctly, RMHED deliberately kept his links with RasterFaAye (talk · contribs) secret, for whatever reason. As has been outlined above, every user has the right to use a secret alternative account, provided it is not used to disrupt Wikipedia. It's obvious that RasterFaAye is no longer a secret alternative account, since the links between the two account have been made public, so I don't see what purpose it could possibly serve to RMHED. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me see, a legitimate alternative account was mistakenly identified publicly. Various editors then made unfounded and incorrect allegations of abusive sockpuppetry. The legitimacy of the account was confirmed, and none of those editors have so far got around to retracting or striking their allegations. The alternative account in question has not been used to evade any block. Have I got it about right so far? DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, what I said was that a possibly/probably legitimate secret account has been outed and is therefore obviously no longer a secret account. He's probably kept it secret for a reason. I'm not sure the account is of any use to RMHED now. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we AGF for the RasterFaAye (talk · contribs · block log) sock when his four proven IP socks ([72], [73], [74], [75]) have already proven their malicious, block evading intent to cause harm to the project? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, RasterFaAye was a legit sock, and never used illegitimately - it was blocked after chatter among CUs and presumably a request for a CU to look into RHMED's possible socks while RHMED was IP-hopping to call Alitias an "Arsehole" on the noticeboards, his user talk, and the featured article of the day. Thus, the sock was blocked in case RHMED's vandalism spree was going to extend into using that account. It did not, and RHMED seems to have mostly calmed down so the sock account was unblocked, because there was no reason to have it blocked. We have two admins attempting to dialogue with RHMED right now, and I trust that both of them will at least notify the rest of us via AN or ANI of the outcome of those discussions.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to back away from treating the alternate account (I said sock for brevity, probably not the best choice of words) as though it were something illicit. This is the sum of their shared pages on en.wiki. One. We don't need to freak out about an alternate account because RMHED flared out and got blocked. What we do need to figure out is why we unblocked an account operated by a user who remains (AFAIK) blocked for ~1 month. That doesn't make any sense to me. On balance, however, it is a relative non-issue if he doesn't edit with it. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Protonk. Tznkai, it doesn't matter whether any abuse was committed with the sock: we block people, not accounts. //roux   18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment by User:EricBarbour

I'm just going to boldly archive the above and hope we can keep our complaints about WR and each other to ourselves. Seriously people, lets keep our eye on the ball here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked 31 hours by User:Antandrus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an IP vandal has discovered the wonderful world of edit summary vandalism. Does anyone want to delete these two versions] of Presidency of Barack Obama. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need that's pretty tame as far as vandalism goes... –xeno (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an attack on the subject of the BLP itself, at least as far as I can tell, so it seems reasonably tame. Selective deletion seems unnecessary. — neuro^(talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretend-dialogue between Obama and someone else. Yes, it is an attack on Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oop, yep, blame 5am editing. — neuro^(talk) 06:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Antandrus, a block which IMHO was well done. Marking this resolved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Random stalking / vandalism / sockpupetry

User:129.21.55.83[76], User:SisDivComp[77], User:1211Beckett[78], have been stalking my edits and randomly reverting them. User:129.21.55.83 also stopped to correct a very obscure typo by User:JHUastrodif. User:JHUastro, User:IrishFilmBuff, User:JBHarshaw and User:UMinnAstro (last three accounts have very close creation dates) all took a sudden interest in Dobsonian telescope and started making a series of similar edits after I reverted an unreferenced addition to Dobsonian telescope(dif) by an anonymous IP. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional: User:129.21.240.7 made a following series of edits right after User:IrishFilmBuff at Altazimuth mount(dif). Along with User:129.21.240.7, User:129.21.55.82 and User:129.21.240.56 are also contributers to the "Dobsonians are crummy" additions... I see an IP range.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are a few too many socks in the drawer. I would suggest you take it to WP:SPI. Firestorm ^Talk 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Feature article vandalism

The various IPs that were vandalizing this page are now vandalizing the featured article with the same edits that required their edits to this page to be deleted from the history. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is gone now. In the future, when someone's personal identity has been posted and we need it removed, please do not post here, since this is a high-traffic page that will only serve to publicize the details. Most people watching here, even admins, do not have the ability to hide revisions. Use the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks. Dominic·t 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for oversight, just admin deletion from the history, as was done for this page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Google cache of Rihanna

Resolved

 – There's nothing admins can do about Google's cache. — neuro^(talk) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone knows how to get google to recrawl, but we may be about to get in the news again. The google cache, and google summary of our Rihanna article[79] says "WWW.MEATSPIN.COM BITCH GOT OWNED." over and over again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Their cache has already been updated as of 26 Feb 2009 07:56:55 GMT to a good version. I'm sure this problem occurs, say, 5,000 times a day. It is not news that at any instant a wikipedia page may be bollocks, though that'll not stop that particular story being rehashed on a weekly basis. But there's nothing to be done here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Their cache has been updated, but the blurb text has not. Score a coup for meatspin.com. Any interest in adding them to the spam blacklist, if they aren't already there? --Dynaflow babble 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed please

I recently worked on a 3RR case (located here) where the reported user had been editing warring over the 23rd/24th. At that point I was within policy to block the user but I just wasn't up for any of that "Why'd you block me? I wasn't edit warring." hassle so I suggested a voluntary topic ban here, he replied with this, he then also e-mailed me explaining his grievance on that article (which was fair enough). So I replied with this lengthy behemoth (You don't have to read it all, it basically just mentions the various things that would help him out etc.). A little while afterwards he came to me with this which upset me because I'd spent so long helping this guy, which led me to reply here. As of now his userpage has changed to mispresent what happened and make me feel like a bad person. I know I'm not because I offered the break from the article voluntarily (check the diffs!). He's also gone on to complain about me at another user's talk. Can anyone please just tell this guy to chill out? He obviously won't listen to me. I was so nice to this guy and now he's just being a completely obnoxious about something that was supposed to help him. Thanks in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about his user page. Yes, he's not telling the truth about what happened. I do worry about religious (and other pages) where a group of editors stoutly defends their version of the page and the often lone editors that come along to bring it more into line with our policies and guidelines get shouted off. But that shouldn't excuse his behaviour. dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You made him an offer to evade blocking. If he decides to ignore it and continues nevertheless, noone will blame you if you block him for violating 3RR. I'm all for assuming good faith but if people make it clear that they won't stop disruptive behavior, AGF cannot replace a block. You did more than an admin would be expected to do when dealing with such a case, if he continues disrupting, take those steps necessary to stop him. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if an editor, no matter how well meaning (as you clearly are/were in this instance) called me buddy, i'd automatically be on edge because I can't stand the word. I know you were trying to be friendly, but to me that message felt a little patronising. Maybe that's just me though. I think that you went the extra mile to resolve the situation, but that perhaps the language used wasn't the best. But like I said, maybe that's me. --GedUK  12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What actually upset me, apart from the article being a total miscarriage of justice, was that Scarian's second reply (to my lengthy email explaining the issues) seemed to imply that he would somehow take me or my situation seriously or look into it. But now it seems to me his replies were just attempts to get me to shut up and leave him alone. He didn't take me seriously, or look into the article. Which he's under no obligation to, but his first reply seemed to imply that he would. I mean instead of saying "give me time and we'll progress further", he could have just said "stop edit warring and that's all there is to it. Go find something else to do." As I've said repeatedly, at this point I have been blocked from editing the article by edit warring from my opponents, so I have nothing to lose. And I am happy with any publicity that the problem article, Ramakrishna, gets. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Publicity"? Makes things sound a little WP:POINTy then ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it is WP:POINT. Goethean's WP:POINT has been "point"ed out and discussing on the talk pages for ages! Its not surprising if a Scarian or any other completely new editor can point this out! Any editor who does not agree with Goethean's WP:POINT is "religious" and will be personal attacked! Here is another example: User_talk:Ludwigs2#question. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Please excuse me admins, I support Scarian and like Goethean says, other editors are not "religious" and "censoring". There are other editors equally good at the scholarly materials related to the article in question--Ramakrishna. It is goethean who repeatedly adds material with WP:UNDUE weightage and from unreliable sources and when we discuss and address them in a polite manner, he attacks the other editors are "religious". The article Ramakrishna is plagued by his tagging, personal attacks, hate feast. Just see the talk page. Few examples,

From the archives

This is what Goethean writes about Ramakrishna Mission,

• At the highest levels, they are dishonest, corrupt, and morally reprehensible. Now there are so many lies and deceptions in these Wikipedia articles, they will probably never be accurate. Behold the legacy of the Ramakrishna Mission: mendacious dishonesty. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)(Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5)
• See section, Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5#Viability_of_too_few_opinions.2C_personal_attacks_and_incivility
• See section, Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6#Stop_the_personal_attacks.2C_incivility

From Talk:Ramakrishna

• Uncivil titles like, " Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue "

Sample personal attacks, (the talk pages are full of these)

• "Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)"
• And it is very clear why editors here prefer to use old sources here like Muller, Rolland, etc. It's because the recent sources contradict the points of faith of the swamis, like that Ramakrishna was a sexless ephebe. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• You are being deliberately obtuse. ( Talk:Ramakrishna )
• Edits like, this calling the editors "totalitarian".

As he says above we are not adding "gobs of material", I can prove my scholarly knowledge... Goethean knows this very well, I was the one to detect the original research, failed reference checks in the version he endorses.

Repeated addition of disputed materials against concensus and edit warring

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramakrishna&diff=prev&oldid=272101273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramakrishna&diff=prev&oldid=271966392

previous noticeboard incidents

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive182#User:Goethean_:_personal_attacks.2C_incivility.2C_totally_disputed_tags
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Disruptive_edits_from_User:Goethean

If you dont turst me, you can contact User:RegentsPark, a fine editor and an admin who has given the Talk:Ramakrishna#Outside_opinion on the article. This is what has happened,

1. The version of the article that Goethean endorses on his talk page was full of original research, failed reference checks, personal comments (yes, very true) in the article, and when other editors rectified the problem, he attacks them as "religious". Its as if we have to support him! See this discussion Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_3#Revisiting_revision_on_25_June_2008 for the problem.
2. He also tried to revert the article to an version older by a month or so! The article had undergone extensive imporovements and he wants to discard the efforts of at least 3 other editors because it does not match his POV.
3. The quotes on his talk page are all cherry picked, from unreliable sources and naturally this is not allowed on the article. You can find the discussion related to this on the Talk pages.
4. He has added disputed, npov tags at least 20 to 30 times when it was not so!

I am no "religious" editor and even Goethean must have realized this by this time, since I have identified original research, failed reference checks in what he had added to provide a completely wrong picture of Ramakrishna... and when other editors try to rectify this, they are personally attacked and called religious .

Latest discussion : Talk:Ramakrishna#tags_by_Goethean

I SUPPORT Scarian and request the admins to look into the personal attacks and incivility Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question left me a message: "response to your disingenuous message" on my talk page when a 3RR warning was given to the editor. (Note the reverts to Goethean's edits were done by 3 diff users: me, Nvineeth, Blutpr). When the second warning for 3RR by User:Ism schism, the resonsive on User talk:Ism schism was "Neat trick: I love it how you edit war with me, and then place a warning tag on my talk page. I got to remember that one. — goethean ॐ 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)". Then (s)he accused me: "You are being deliberately' obtuse.", violating WP:Assume good faith. Remarks like "Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with." are similar accusations.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor who happens to know a good bit about the topic, let me just add that the material Gothean wants to add - while certainly worthy of notice - does not represent a broadly accepted scholarly view of RamaKrishna's life. it's basically one or two scholars who have endeavored to make a Freudian psychohistory of RK. If I were to critique their work professionally (which after seeing all this I may very well do) I'd say that they've made serious analytic errors in their use of Freudian techniques, and indulged in a lot more scandal-theorizing than any academic ought to (or perhaps that's just the way Gothean is presenting the material; I need to dig more deeply). at any rate, the stepwise elevation of RK's rejection of 'women and gold' (a fairly common monastic theme in all religions, mind you), to claims that RK was a victim of child abuse, to assertions about RK's innate misogyny and homoerotic tendencies is inflamatory at best. it's completely inane to insist on presenting them as valid facts about RK's life the way Gothean keeps insisting on. add that I've warned him about civility myself several times, to no effect, and you'll understand why I personally think giving him a short block might be best. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If Ludwig2's comments portrayed the issues in a remotely reasonable way, I would be on his and Nvineeth's side of the debate. The material which I want to add, which is on my user page, represents the 12 scholars who have written notably on Ramakrishna, not "basically one or two scholars." Ramakrishna's phrase "women and gold" has nothing to do with their argument. Their argument is about his dressing as a woman for months at a time, his self-described "worship of his own penis" as a form of religious devotion, his self-described "worshiping the penis of boys" as a form of religious devotion, his falling into swoons whenever attractive young male boys appear, and a host of other behaviors documented by eyewitnesses. It is the academic consensus that Ramakrishna was sexually eccentric. But the article is not allowed to say that. In the opinion of scholars, the Mission has suppressed these facts. But the article is not allowed to say that. It is only because the topic is obscure that the article is so divergent from scholarly opinion and so subservient to the discredited claims of a religious organization. Ludwigs2 must have somehow missed when all of this was repeatedly discussed on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 00:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deep sigh... of the references you've given (if I remember correctly) only two of them refer to actual academic works. the remainder are people writing reviews, forwards, or other references to those two academic positions. as I've said previously, please don't pad your references with material like that. if you really want to dig into content here, let me point out the following:

1. worshiping the penis (or lingam) is a large part of many Hindu traditions (usually deeply symbolic in Bhakti practices, but often explicit in tantric forms). this is a lot more common than you might think, though it violates western sensibilities (whale oil, for instance, was used in ritual anointments throughout Europe because of its resemblance to semen - from whence we get the name 'sperm whale').
2. Ramakrishna practiced a form of advaita which rejects all forms of duality - he was known to walk naked in the streets, much less cross-dress. eccentric? sure. sexually eccentric? even if I were sure what that term meant, the best I could say would be 'maybe'. the problem with 'sexually eccentric' is that it's a term designed to give impressions of perversion to the western mind, something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

if you want to discuss this more, let's go back to the talk page - not that I think I'll ever convince you, but I don't want to import that debate here any more than we already have. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what Advaita is. I know what Tantra is. Please do not condescend to me. You are arguing against the academic consensus of writers on Ramakrishna, not my personal beliefs. As you said above, maybe you need to dig deeper. — goethean ॐ 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem with 'sexually eccentric' is that it's a term designed to give impressions of perversion to the western mind, something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Do you care to back that up with...anything? Anything at all? Like a source comparable to one of the nineteen quotations I've posted? — goethean ॐ 03:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothean, you're not the only person reading this; please allow me to clarify things for others. that being said, which part of the phrase "let's go back to the talk page" was unclear? if you want to talk article content, talk to me there. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, the "19 quotations" are cherry picked which are not WP:RS. Here the discussion is about your personal attacks and incivility and edit warring.... not about the content. If you want to discuss about the article, then "let's go back to the talk page". This discussion is about WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. Hope things are clear now. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support Scarian's comments and request that admins look into the personal attacks and incivility concerning Goethean. Also, I endorse the comments made above by; dougweller, Nvineeth, Redtigerxyz, and User:Ludwigs2. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please see Goethean reported by User:Ism schism (Result: Voluntary article ban suggested ) as this subject is also unresolved and directly related. There has been no action taken on this violation, and personal attacks and incivility within Goethean's methods continue (as is clearly shown by the comments of other editors above), this Result should be revisited. I suggest a non-voluntary article ban for a period of time. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Site wrongfully considered spam: romlit

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but for some reason I can't link to www.romlit.ro - when I try to save a version, it goes to preview mode and tells me that the address had been designated as "spam". The domain is owned by the Writers' Union of Romania, and is the website of its main publication, România Literară. It's about as unspam as it gets. I was perfectly able to link to it not more than a day ago. Can somebody look into this please? Dahn (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked and it now seems to work. does anybody know what the exact problem was? Dahn (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, there could be dozens of reasons - a faulty http request...network traffic...the spamlist was in the middle of an update at the exact millisecond of your request...I could go on. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, the meta spam blacklist briefly had a typo that would block every address that had a "t" in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay - a purely technical problem. Thank you both. Dahn (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:121.54.32.39 removing links to other Wikis

- - 121.54.32.39 (talk · contribs)'s edits are removing links to other Wikis, text, etc. - am I missing something or is this just vandalism? dougweller (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) An example, now reverted [80] dougweller (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like removal-vandalism to me. Warn and report to WP:AIV if needed. SoWhy 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Renegadeviking

I was simply going to revert and ignore, but this makes the third time that Renegadeviking (talk · contribs) has attempted to troll the Anime article.[81][82][83] Looking at Renegadeviking's edit history, it's fairly evidence that Renegadeviking has been trolling other articles, such as Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States), and 2008 in Iraq among others. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I note he doesn't yet seem to have been warned. Give him a warning (along the lines of "cut it out or we'll block you") and if he doesn't cut it out then well... I support blocking him. Meanwhile I'll hang around his contribs page reverting his random soapboxing and trolling. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 WRC event writeups

Keke Ruehle (talk · contribs)'s writeups for 2009 Rally Ireland, 2009 Rally Norway and 2009 Cyprus Rally read like articles from a motoring magazine, full of subjective opinion and unreferenced claims. I've tagged the articles, mentioned my concerns on the article talk pages and left messages on his user talk page, to no avail. I don't know how to get his attention, short of deleting everything he's written. DES (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's what it takes. He must need a hint that people are serious about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke

Moved to the reliable sources noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Montalbano"

There appears to be persistent low-level vandalism over the past two weeks or so from a number of anonymous IPs, attempting to attribute to one "Michael Montalbano" many of the accomplishements of Joan Baez, Carole King, Jim Croce, and the Commodores. Since much of the vandalism went unreverted, I thought I'd leave a note here... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? --GedUK  16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my edits in the past hour have been cleaning up after Michael Montalbano vandalism; don't really feel like spending significantly more time on the matter right at moment... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually searching for the name [84] would be more useful, as they are still available. Anonmoos seems to have caught a lot of them. (Good job :) I'll swing through those hits as I have a few minutes.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, i did a quick search, and so far found user:63.3.11.129, user:172.130.153.143 and user:172.162.12.202 --GedUK  17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

63.3.11.129 was blocked as an open proxy once upon a time. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to have been reverted. Any I found were already reverted (except one where Deor was there just as I found the right edit :)); maybe the best thing to do is let the database get around to updating the search results and then I'll keep an eye on it (if nobody minds). (Ummm, dunno if Robbie Robertson gets outraged, but I'll be happy to get outraged on his behalf.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: If you do a search on michaelmontalbano as all one word, there are mentions of much the same kind osf graffiti/vandalism going back to 2007. Sigh. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the contributions list of User:63.3.11.129, for example. It looks like a kid using multiple computers at home/school. Deor (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And it seems to have been going on for awhile, alas. The Through the Night edit was in December.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please restore my MFD comments.

Resolved

 – User withdrew request –xeno (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor is repeatedly removing my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery.[85] Can someone please revert and warn, so that I can avoid edit-warring? Thanks. THF (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks to Toddst for notifying the other party, since he has barred me from his talk page. I had previously notified him on my talk page.) THF (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference, this is concerning actions of Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I created the first deletion tag (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009.[86] 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009, THF forked the article.[87] Editors are not supposed to fork articles which are in MfD/Afd. User:THF knows better. He then attempted to create a second MfD within the first.[88] I moved these comments to the talk page.[89] Ikip (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now MULTI, but Ikip misrepresents the facts. Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery was created at 16:19, before Ikip finalized his MfD at 16:20 and after Ikip deleted his template at 16:16: it was a simple edit conflict, as I did not realize that Ikip would renew his frivolous nomination. I created it because User:Ikip tried to add material diametrically opposed to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery to that essay. If he doesn't want it to exist, he's welcome to ask me to blank and CSD it, as long as he promises not to readd it to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. After creating an MfD and after people had started voting, he changed the MfD to include a second essay that noone had considered, which is why I tried to break it out so people could understand what was being responded to. THF (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(And, once again, Ikip substantively changes his talk comment after other people respond to it without making a note that it has been updated. Not cool.) THF (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The key word it "finalized". User:THF knew that the article was up for deletion, at 16:13, 26 February 2009, when I incorrect applied the tag,[90] so he forked of the article into a new article at 16:19, 26 February 2009.[91]

This is a complete fabrication:

"Create essay to maintain content inappropriately added to WP:PUFF"[92]

So is this:

I created it because User:Ikip tried to add material diametrically opposed to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery to that essay.

I never added anything to the essay except the MfD tag, please strike it immediately.

Ikip (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This seemed like an addition to me. I now see that DGG was the first to add it. THF (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

that was a reversion, because in-between me adding the MfD tag, you removed this section and made your own article.[93] I thought I was responsible, so I reverted before the MfD tag was incorrectly added.[94] But I wasn't responsible for removing that content, you were.

So you were wrong, DGG originally added this.[95] I appreciate you striking out the accusation. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't add biased resolved comments to a section you started and are deeply involved with.[96] Todd removed this[97] Ikip (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This all seems like a pretty silly thing to get yourselves into a fuss over. Can't you both go your separate ways? –xeno (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to drop this by adding a resolved tag. I brought the complaint, I was satisfied with the resolution of the issue by the fact that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery will shortly close under WP:SNOW. I am informed that that is not sufficient grounds to add a {{resolved}} tag. My apologies if I added the tag inappropriately, and apologies for any admins who have to read through Ikip's WP:STICK. THF (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article creator marking AfD as keep (even if he put it in the wrong place)

Resolved

 – removed template Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When I nominated this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septennial cycle either Twinkle didn't work properly or this was when Twinkle didn't work at all and somehow I missed adding the template to the page. Which I rectified. The article's creator has now added a sentence at the bottom of the AfD marking the article as keep. As I'm involved and about to go on holiday, I'd appreciate someone uninvolved taking a look and maybe making sure there isn't any other mischief before the AfD finishes. Thanks. The relevant diff is [98]. 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

I've removed the misleading comment. Will notify editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Systemizer, one could be forgiven for mistaking the meaning of the line of commented out text which is added when AfDing. One is permitted to grasp at straws; all he did was transfer that line into the AfD debate thinking that it had meaning, when it was just a template for the eventual closure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I saw it too. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That does make sense, I'm pretty sure that is what happened. I don't think he knows his way around Wikipedia enough yet to have done it deliberately to mislead. dougweller (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)