Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687

Beefman seems to be in pretty blatant violation of WP:TALK at Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin. Please review that pages history. Would it be possible to get an admin to deliver a warning so this does have to go to AE? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)After review, I think User:Beefman might have been acting in good-faith. Either way, there seems to be some kind of silly revert war going on on this talkpage. Admin might want to step in. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Beefman was blocked for edit warring. That's a pretty aggressive block, IMHO, even if it is for only 12 hours. Is there more to this than a review of the talk page history would show? If the user has a long prior history of this kind of thing I don't know about, that would go a long way towards easing my mind. In particular, Nick's comment about AE leads me to think there's more to this than meets the eye, but there's no notice on the talk page about what ArbCom ruling applies, so I be confused.

At the very least, Beefman's removal of a personal note, having nothing to do with the content of the article, and directed only to him, which probably should have gone on his user talk page, is reasonable. I'm going to go remove it now, to prevent Beefman from doing it again upon his return and possibly getting into further trouble.

I agree with OM that the Hoyle comments should stay, but I don't understand why either one of you think it important that they stay in some particular spot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The removal of others' comments on a talk page is not OK unless it's a BLP or a personal attack or something - none of that appears to apply here. Beefman was asked to stop removing/moving the comments yet he/she persisted. I debated whether to call this an edit war or a disruptive editing block and you could argue that I should have used the latter, but I had a hard time seeing it as anything constructive or something that should be allowed to continue. The request to stop did not generate any change in behavior so the options left were protecting the talk page (usually a bad idea as that silences everyone) or blocking the user for a very short period. If another admin wants to unblock or change the block reason, I'm ok with that but I didn't see this as very controversial. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To remove any doubt, I've unblocked Beefman/shortening the block to time already spent. It's clear that the objectionable behavior has stopped. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify here, my AE comment was inaccurate, and, as Floq mentioned, potentially confusing. I don't think there are any ArbCom rulings here. I also think that Toddst1's block was a bit quick, but frankly, while beef's actions might have been "reasonable" (as I was trying to imply when I said "good-faith" above), I think they pretty clearly violate WP:TPO (especially as he was asked to desist); hence, I'd say that while Todd's block might have been harsh, it wasn't unreasonably so... NickCT (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem has arisen with user:Borchica on Semir Osmanagić it involves a dispute over the status of Mr Osmanagić’s PHD. The source provided [[1]] I have been unable to verfiy this. He claims that the PHD is mentioerd near the bottom of the page. In fact (as he has now informed my you have to enter may 2010 in the search tool) I have still been unable to verfiy this PHD. He has re-inerted (or removed the failed verification tag) three times now [[2]][[3]][[4]]. He has failed too repond on the talk page when I raised this [[5]]. The sources does list a Mr. SEMIR OSMANAGIÆ [[6]] but the spelling is very different from Mr Osmanagić’s name so there is no evidance they are the same person. Also this [[7]] list is Phd as 2007 (not 2010). Thus whilst he have an SPS for his claim to a Phd the source that keeps being re-insereted is a bity iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this conversation is best had (at least first) on the article's talk page?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess he is edit warring on a BLP. Could be admin worthy here or at WP:AN3. This seems to be the info Borchica is referring to...google translate renders it as a June 2010 PhD in "sociology science" (SOCIOLOŠKIH NAUKA) for a Semir Osmanagić.

Here's the International University of Sarajevo referring to him as "Dr.".

..and although his home page says Sarajevo, June, 2007 I guess that could be the date he started the project. The image files from the award ceremony are prefixed with "doktori nauka rektorat jun10". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's worth much, the University of Sarajevo did grant him a PhD, I know this from an offsite contact. Osmanagich's name has a variety of forms and spellings. I'm more bothered by his continued failure to listen to other editors and his attacks on them - see Talk:Bosnian pyramids#Sources & deletions. Even trivial things, eg [8] where he reverted my removal of all the links - mainly to bookstores which didn't even mention Osmanagich on the linked page. My edit summary had said not to link to bookstore links. He's new and should be given some slack, but I think he's had enough now and needs to try to build consensus and WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion but rather then explain that Æ is sometimes a variant of ć he just says that the name is often spelt differently (indeed he makes no mention of Æ). In addition I felt his reply also had a rather insulting tone [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think one should ascribe tone to the remark. He did try to give an explanation. I'm no expert on Slavic names but I also get the impression that the Æ in question may be more of a typographical or rendering issue so the user not addressing that particular bit may have been because he was unsure of the cause. From what has been said so far it seems Borchica has been accorded suspicion due to the controversial nature of the subject. Borchica says Osmanagich is a PhD, from the above that seems to have been verified. If the user is new and is being harried, which it seems he is, an exasperated reaction on his part is understandable. Lambanog (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those of you editing Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes know that we've had a problem editor on our hands obsessed with the inclusion of the information on THIS EDIT that every other editor on two talk pages, Talk:Bob's Burgers and Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes, has described as trivia without verifiable cultural relevence. Numerous editors, including myself, have contributed to this one editor an article's length of advice, feedback and links on the talk pages explaining policies regarding verifiability and sources, notoriety, trivia, ect. that he either ignores or selectively reads to misquote back to us in an anemic attempt to make his point, which can simply be summarized by this; he wants it, and you can't make him not have it. He is not interested in policy or MOS, not interested in collaboration, not interested in consensus, not interested in anything other than dumping a table full of trivia, unsourced or woefully undersourced, and expecting us to clean up his mess and make it useful. His obsession with this disruption even goes so far as to attempt deleting RPP requests, which has now become moot, as he has learned the art of auto-confirmation and is a now practiced sock master with a growing file of accounts to his name. This clutter has been reverted ad nauseum, and yet returns daily, sometimes hourly, from a randomly created sock account. As of this posting, he basically challenged us to do something about him; following a comment to an admin I've been conversing with about this matter, saying I'm ready to go in the edit summary, he once again posted this fluff within twelve minutes of my last comment with edit summaries on the two separate pages saying l e t s GO! (a fair assumption that notification has been made, and add WikiStalking to his list). I believe it is time to discuss a ban of BlueMondo131 to put an end to this constant disruption, and to discuss whether additional preventative measures, such as a rangeblock to prevent new account creation by BlueMondo131, are necessary. KnownAlias contact 06:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Knownalias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What user KnownAlias is failing to mention is that throughout the discussion of determining where the content should be moved, the user recommended my IP be blocked effectively cutting off all communication. Instead of compromise or even attempting to reach a consensus, the user insisted on removing me from the equation. Upon this communication cut off, I was forced to create an account to keep the lines of communication open. This is considered “sockpuppeting” but I openly admitted that I was the previous IP upon the second post I made while still attempting to form a consensus.

After providing paragraphs of points with other completely unrelated users, user KnownAlias accused and reported all the opposing opinion’s IPs and usernames as sock puppets of my account to once again remove myself and anyone with differing views from the topic. [[10]]

At this point the user KnownAlias would reiterate previously proven invalid points to a level of obvious inconsideration of all the valid arguments. It was clear that the user KnownAlias was no longer listening and doing anything in their power to work around solving the problem. This includes provoking edit wars.

I have now been forced into defending the article the only way possible.

WP:POINT specifies that you should not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. I have done nothing to disrupt wikipedia as I have only added harmless content. The user KnownAlias and his meat puppetry of admin are the disrupting parties that lock the page. As user KnownAlias makes inferential comparisons, I should be allowed the same privilege; such that WP:BURDEN specifies that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, under the same logic, it should be true that the user who locks the material is the one that is disrupting the page. --KTDizzle90 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are the images at tinypic screenshots? If they are then it violates WP:COPYRIGHTS which says "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And blocked indefinite for persisting in adding the links. If anybody thinks it too harsh then change it. No need to ask me. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See for yourself; i56.tinypic.com/ngl0l.jpg . The bigger problem even with that is there's no relatable information, just the screenshot. It doesn't even identify coming from an episode, much less which one. And THIS SOURCE was even worse; the "interactive Burger of the Day menu" at the bottom of the page only contains two that actually appeared in the first episode. The rest are original to the site. And that still doesn't address the issue of the "Neighboring Business" section, which was never sourced. And all of this was explained to him, but every time you trashed one source, his solution was to switch back to the other. And, BTW, my edit history of consensus building and collaboration speaks for itself; I'm the only editor who made even half an effort, even in spite of objecting to the material in question, of incorporating it. This editor's history also speaks for itself; he didn't start socking to have a voice over a block, but several, which got him blocked. And the first RPP was for the main Bob's Burgers page, which was before I joined the conversation. My position is clear; sock consensus was bad faith, and I rescinded my support, however reluctant it was to begin with, to these edits. KnownAlias contact 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It also bears noting that most of the sourcing conversation on the talk pages was about the notoriety of the "Burger of the Day", which this editor is just assuming. And that speaks to what I was saying before about a selective understanding of Wiki-policy to defend his position; he quotes back something he found about editors seeking out sources in good faith rather that arbitrarily reverting the edit, and I'm fine with that (do it all the time myself), but as it was pointed out to him in the first conversation that predated me, no such evidence of it's relevance exists, so how do we source his edit? He provides no single link to any article espousing it's cultural relevance, no effort to incorporate it in an encyclopedic manner. Just a trivia table nowhere close to MOS. KnownAlias contact 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And it shouldn't be too harsh to indef. block him. Like I said in the opening you can add it to the list. He'll have a new one by this afternoon. KnownAlias contact 08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the allegation of "cutting off communication", I didn't see any attempts to communicate that were being cut offs. None of the additional accounts BlueMondo131 created attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page; they all went straight to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If such images are copyright violations, then they fall under our WP:ELNEVER .. hence - immediate blacklist upon first abuse (I've done that now). Please do that on next occasions immediate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted; sorry. KnownAlias contact 08:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs, most editors don't know this.

I have now armed XLinkBot in a very, very hard way for this case - please revert this edit if XLinkBot is causing too much or too bad collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, i thought we finally settled this problem. He made another account, huh? I recommend a scan of recent account creations and block the one that sounds too obvious. If he persists, why not block his whole IP range for a week? And change the protection level of the page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:58 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a jump to full protection. I felt no qualms semi-protecting the article, because the edits that would have been excluded were predominantly the sockpuppetry listed above. Full protection of the article would cut off every non-administrator from editing the article, and that felt like too much of a "the bad guys have won" outcome to go to that step if there are intervening ones that can be effective.

That's why when KnownAlias came to me asking what's the next steps to take, I recommended the discussion come here, to see if there's broader support for an IP range block. That's a pretty harsh step too, but I think there will likely be less collateral damage there than full protection, (I'm not a CheckUser, so I couldn't tell you what IP(s) BlueMondo131 has used or what side effects it would lead to.) so that's my recommended next step. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, that if XLinkBot fails (I will not comment on wiki about it, mail me, or find me on IRC), that we apply the abuse filter for some time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous editors complained about the lack of sources; DavidP provided direct links to the Bob’s Burger Episodes on the Fox website as there are no better sources than the content itself. User KnownAlias misunderstood the source as linking to the Interactive burger of the day widget. Although, this does provide ample proof that it’s a notable component of the series. After the previous information not being good enough for user KnownAlias, we provided stills which fall under Fair Use(not copyright infringement). Once again sourcing was discredited. Even though they are copyright free, I have never advocated these sources, but was threatened to provide them.

The Simpsons Couch gag [[11] ] is dauntingly similar to burger of the day in notability and provides very few sources. The episode number should be sourcing enough as it is on the Simpsons article. It has been stated many times that “Because it’s there doesn’t mean it needs to go here”. WP:OSE but it also states that this can be a valid argument when used correctly as above.

The above posts discuss hardly anything about the content, only ways to remove the user from posting it. Once again the accounts have done nothing to listen to the other side of the argument but merely side with a biased username. This is hardly collaboration but rather a public display of admin abuse and group debauchery. User KnownAlias accuses me of a ‘it’s my way or the highway’ attitude, when in reality it’s the other way around. --131.156.118.58 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reality check: your ridiculous edit will never make it into the articles. Trying to paint any other editor in a bad light when you have acted (and continue to act) in such an inappropriate manner is only falling on deaf ears. Stop trying to introduce the edit. Okay? Doc talk 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again ignoring the article, targeting the user. --131.156.118.58 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What else do you expect? You painted the bullseye on yourself. The worst transgression you committed in all of this was a failure to work within the community. Consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with you. You lose some of those battles, that's life. Your ever behavior has been, "but I'm gonna make this same point again, and you're going to give me what I want, right?" No, we are not. No matter how many times your mommy gave you a candy as a kid every time you said "PleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePlease", it's not going to work here. We (on the Bob's burgers pages; I'm not gonna speak collectively for the admins here), and the governing policies of Wikipedia, do not agree with you. KnownAlias contact 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"(G)roup debauchery", huh? The IP is making vandal fighting sound a lot more fun than it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A consensus ban is not going to work when he keeps socking incessantly. The following are  Confirmed as BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs):

• KTDizzle90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Whoshungry (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• KnownSmalias (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ilikehamtoooo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ILikebambimmmhmm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• XXxGoFigure555 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RavenRockyRoad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DamnThatsFresh13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skyb4ll4h (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gunit2112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ismellgood90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Spanky1Detective (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since BlueMondo131 is intentionally trying to bust autoconfirmed to edit both Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes, I recommend full-protection on both. –MuZemike 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I found a favorite on that list...add editor impersonation to the charges. KnownAlias contact 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't we do pending changes? CTJF83 21:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't worked on one of those, myself; but checking out the page, a level 2 does sound reasonable for this situation. KnownAlias contact 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, only Bob's Burgers is full-protected, while the List of Bob's Burgers episodes remains at semi. Doc talk 21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Protection changed to full protection. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

One more bit of evidence: he logged back in as BlueMondo131 to edit his talk page [12]. I think that makes it clear that he has no intent of editing constructively in the future, so we should deal with him in that light. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

He has also spammed his "taunting" on several of his socks' talkpages and, as a result, I have revoked talk page access from each and every one of the socks. Also, three more  Confirmed acocunts:

• Riboflavennnn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BlockyMcBlock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RannndyNewman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Underyling range blocked for 3 months. I don't care if it's from an educational institution or not, there has been nothing but abuse from that range the entire time. –MuZemike 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i think he's operating on the episodes that have pages. He's claiming it's part of the format. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 8:50 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Libel against Coventry University found at following posting:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_42#Suspect_PhD_thesis

__ 75.210.247.129 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And just why are you reporting about a thread that's almost two years old? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the post here was the IP's first post, we're obviously dealing with a sock of somebody. Revenge is a dish best served cold :) GiantSnowman 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the thread suggests some uncomplimentary things were said about Coventry University, but I couldn't see anything obviously libellous (I am not a lawyer, blah, blah etc...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the 'libel' either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What? You mean "libel" dosen't mean "anything I don't like"? This changes everything... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

99.122.0.37 continues to disrupt the article Jasmine (American singer). On 9 April 2011, the user reverted the article 3 times within a 24-hour period, removing a legitimate referenced section and disrupting the syntax of wikitables in the "Discography" section. In addition, related links were repeatedly removed. The user was warned about disrupting articles 4 times, and continued to do so anyway. I am requesting a block of this user. --Djc wi (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The user was told to use the talk page several times and never did. --Djc wi (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's just cut and dry vandalism, warn the IP then take it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If it's an edit war, take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You're more likely to get a response there, as the people that go there handle those issues regularly. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jnast1 has repeatedly failed to gain consensus to remove content in Rosie O'Donnell since August 2010. The user has repeatedly reverted and mentioned policies that have not been demonstrated to be applicable for removing the content. Moreover, the arguments have often been recycled and revisited by Jnast1, which have been disruptive to building consensus, especially after a WP:3O was received. Jnast1 has also started using votes instead of discussing and building consensus.

Jnast1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The discussions have been at Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Restoring_.22Chinese_parody.22_section and continued on to Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Imitation_chinese_.28.22ching_chong.22_controversy.29.

Jnast1 first made an en masse content removal on August 30, 2010 of fully sourced content with an edit summary of "this is not notable and amounts to a smear against a living public figure." After discussion, the content was restored on September 6 by User:Str1977 with warning of "stop censoring this". However, Jnast1 again reverted the entire section on March 15 3:22 (UTC) with no detailed discussion on the talk page and with only an edit summary of "per NPov and Blp." After I reverted the unsubstantiated deletion, Jnast1 reverted a second time on March 15. After I added more reliable sources to the article to demonstrate that sources indicate the incident was not WP:UNDUE or WP:RECENTISM, Jnast1 reverted a third time on March 16 and did not WP:PRESERVE any of the fully sourced material. A warning on edit warring was issued to Jnast1.

A third opinion was given on March 16 by User:RightCowLeftCoast that explained how the content was notable per WP:GNG , was not WP:UNDUE, and not in violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. The 3O said other controversies should be added if reliably sourced, instead of arguing that this incident did not belong in the article. There was a concern about using direct quotes from protesters, and those have since been removed.

After an editor, User:Mixaphone, made one comment of "not notable" and deleted the article content without any further supporting explanation, Jnast1 has started counting votes instead of building consensus based on policy and sources. Despite the third opinion by RightCowLeftCoast, Jnast1 has continued to repeat that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and still brings up WP:UNDUE and BLP. The latest recycling is on April 13. The content that has continually been reverted by Jnast1 despite Template:POV-section already being in the article, is now at my user page User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell. It uses 11 sources including 2 books, one of which is O'Donnell's autobiography, another is by academic scholars. I had left a warning on Jnast1 talk page on March 23 about reusing the same arguments being disruptive. After I summarized the sprawling discussion on the article talk page, Jnast1 collapsed the entire summary and started to campaign for removing content again without providing any new justification for removal of sourced material.

While good faith has been assumed to this point, WP:COMPETENCE is required to comprehend the points previously made and not continually rehash previous discussions and disrupting consensus building. —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There were numerous 'scandals' attributed to O'Donnell during her months at the View, we even have reliable sourcing to prove it, yet none of these really are a part of O'Donnell's life story except Trump's protracted blitz and O'Donnell's ongoing disagreement with Hasselbeck over the Iraq War which ended O'Donnell's co-hosting the show early. The opinions of other editors in favor of what amounts to character assassination expressed those opinions before the entire View section was cleaned up. After clean-up it became apparent that opinions were more in favor of removal but more opinions would likely help find concensus. To that end I was trying to find common ground with Bagumba so we could present a neutral request for comment. i have tried to move the discussion forward but Bagumba actually keeps repeating their same arguments rather than simply answering a direct question - did they feel my attempt to summarize the three options was accurate or should be changed. They have ignored my efforts to resolve this, even after I held my nose and re-inserted a non tabloid-like summary. For those who missed the opportunity they can still read the expanded version complete with extended quotes at Ching chong#Modern usage and now a back-up version at User:Bagumba/Rosie O'Donnell. I think the restating of our opinions is unproductive so would still like to get a neutral request for comment going. If anyone can help with that I welcome the assistance. Jnast1 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say two things: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that these two editors were not able to reach consensus regarding the discussion at hand. I had hoped that content would be retained per verification of reliable sources, as I had not seen that the content regarding the issue which the 3O was about, IMHO, did not violate WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, if consensus could not be reached to retain content here, I had suggested an alternative of creating a sub-article regarding controversies related to the television show the view, and leave a summary on the O'Donnell page of related content with an appropriate wikilink to that new article; this alternative appears to not have been accepted by these two users.

Although consensus can change, to continue to remove content completely that is well referenced bring into question a users goof faith in editing, and makes other users question whether they are editing without a point of view to support. It's unfortunate that the users had not decided to seek additional comments through other resolution forums such as WP:RFC before bringing up a section here. That being said, if there are issues that the current active users believe cannot be solved even after attempts to mediate a resolution with non-interested editors weighing in opinions in an attempt to find consensus, this would be an appropriate step. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A RFC is exactly what I was trying to get to; BTW I did not completely remove the material but trimmed it back to only what I felt was needed, another editor then deleted it all. With respect Wikipedia is not a tabloid so an article on controversies seems way off the deep end but maybe that can be another option for the RFC. Jnast1 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet other subjects with articles such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have articles specifically about the controversies that have been deemed notable. Furthermore, there are articles about affairs of public individuals that are deemed notable as well that are either contained within the public individual's article or have their own separate article due to size of content. Therefore whether a subject maybe be of a "tabloid" nature, if the event or individual is deemed to be notable it would warrant its own article, or possible inclusion within the primary subject's article. Of course BLP should be adhered to if it is on the primary subject's biography article, and on article's that are spun-out or separate from the primary subject's article or sections within the primary subject's article should still adhere to WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On April 14th, this user removed cited information from the article from an interview with the director stating that he was working on the film since 2002 and replaced it with "alleges" [13]. His edit summary stated [14] that it was unsourced, but this was untrue as the references backed everything up (they are refs 5 and 6). He also added in the Box Office reports from a website, with commentary that the results were "disappointing".

I restored the edits (I hadn't been logged in at the time) and substituted the box office results with information from Box Office Mojo, with a simple statement of the Box Office. I later included a statement from Mark Millar, who basically responded to the controversy that Super was ripping off his film Kick Ass saying that wasn't the case. Once again, the IP reverted my edits (once again saying that it was unsourced) and removed the Millar quote, calling it "Corporate spin" and WP:OR despite that it was sourced and that Millar had nothing to do with the production and had no personal gain to defend Gunn's film. [15]

He continued to remove the cited information and add in the "disappointing" comment. He later left a message on my talk page [16] saying that he was removing Gunn's cited comments because as it came from Gunn directly "that makes that info "subjective" and, not to mention, biased since he could be making it up/spinning his way out of a dud. You're drinking the kool-aid.", going on to call me a fanboy.

After I gave him four warnings on his talk pages for removing cited information (which he kept on deleting, saying it was vandalism), he changed his tune and instead "clarified" the section with adding stuff like "alleges" and "according to Gunn". [17] He wrote on the talk page that as the information was from Gunn, that means that they are allegations on level with people saying Obama was born in Africa. [18]

So basically it comes down to this:

1. I think the article should simply state the Box Office without any commentary on how good or disappointing it was. I also think the "production" of the article should simply state the facts without any doubt placed onto the director's comments (I.E. "alleges" or "he said").
2. The anon IP believes that "disappointing" is a verifiable fact and that since Gunn is "making it up/spinning his way out of a dud" we should repeatedly add "alleges" or "he says" to every statement he makes on the film's history.

I realize that I have broken the 3RR rule in reverting his edits, and I will accept any blocks for this. But it's clear from the comments left by the anon on my talk page and the discussion page that he has POV issues with Gunn and the film and that the article stands better to simply report the facts as opposed to offering commentary on how well it did or questioning the validity of the director's statements.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors have been blocked for edit warring. I will also increase CyberGhostface's block length because of the comment "I realize that I have broken the 3RR rule in reverting his edits, and I will accept any blocks for this". It is not acceptable to deliberately edit in unacceptable ways with the expectation and acceptance of being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind - already done.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I ask that the user have his talk page access taken away, due to this abusive statement:[19] He was indef'd due to this one:[20] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 made 2 dozen non-consensus, disruptive, below-indicated deletions. Of "see also's" in bios of Black actors listed in the List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. The "see also's" point to the list. Bull was warned many times by sysops and other editors, and asked to self-revert in accordance with consensus. Bull's editing here is an extension of long-standing similar behavior. He has failed to self-revert. Leaving us with ongoing disruption.

Background. Bull first, in a number of comments at AfD, argued vociferously for deletion of the List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. See here. He failed. Bull's view was non-consensus. It was considered, and was rejected by the community. The list was deemed a "keep".

Bull had made similar arguments, which were also rejected by the community, at:

1. Bull's failed effort (first to merge, and then to re-name) the category "African American artists" here (the result: "keep as is");
2. Bull's failed AfD of "African American film directors" here (the result: "keep"); and
3. Bull's failed nomination for deletion of the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees here (the result: "keep").

Bull's non-consensus mass deletions. Having failed to delete the list, Bull followed me to articles of actors on the list. Articles Bull had never edited before. In which I had added "see also's", pointing to the list. Bull deleted the "see also's" from the following 27 Black actors bios. Even marking some edit summaries "minor"—an inappropriate obfuscation.

Bulldog deletions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
03:47, March 27, 2011 Beyoncé Knowles ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:46, March 27, 2011 Prince (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:45, March 27, 2011 m Whoopi Goldberg ‎ 03:43, March 27, 2011 Whoopi Goldberg ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:42, March 27, 2011 Eddie Murphy ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:41, March 27, 2011 Samuel L. Jackson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:41, March 27, 2011 m Sidney Poitier 03:40, March 27, 2011 Seal (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:40, March 27, 2011 Morgan Freeman ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:39, March 27, 2011 Halle Berry ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:38, March 27, 2011 Denzel Washington ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:38, March 27, 2011 Queen Latifah ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:37, March 27, 2011 Will Smith ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:37, March 27, 2011 m Cuba Gooding, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:36, March 27, 2011 Bill Cosby 03:35, March 27, 2011 Dorothy Dandridge ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:35, March 27, 2011 Jennifer Hudson ‎ (rm SA behaving like categories) 03:34, March 27, 2011 Don Cheadle ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:33, March 27, 2011 Louis Gossett, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:33, March 27, 2011 Forest Whitaker ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:32, March 27, 2011 Alfre Woodard ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:32, March 27, 2011 Ving Rhames ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:31, March 27, 2011 S. Epatha Merkerson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category) 03:30, March 27, 2011 Tracy Morgan ‎ (rm SA) 03:30, March 27, 2011 Mo'Nique ‎ (rm) 03:29, March 27, 2011 Chiwetel Ejiofor ‎ (rem See Also spam) 03:29, March 27, 2011 Terrence Howard ‎ (rm See Also)

Reactions to Bull's deletions. Despite repeated requests by a number of sysops and editors that he do so, and consensus approbation of his actions, Bull failed to self-revert. See here. Bull had also been warned a number of times for disruptive editing, hounding, editing against consensus, and mass deletions—going back at least until 2009, as indicated here. A sampling of sysop comments relating to his mass deletions of "see also's" is as follows:

Sysop Bearian reverted Bull's above deletion at Beyonce Knowles, indicating that inclusion of the "see also" was valid. Bull then again deleted the entry. Without any explanation other than: "Undid revision 421703487 by Bearian (talk) rv – WP:NPA". Bearian added as recently as today: "This may be redundant, but ... Bulldog123 should self-revert whenever possible on these edits".[21]

Sysop DGG wrote to Bull on April 3, in part:

"the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists ... from articles after the ... lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so."[22]

and:

"many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second ... it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content.... [T]hat we were opposed is ... the reason why it is not I who will block you.... That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to.... If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them."[23]

Sysop Ironholds, reacting to similar mass deletions by Bull earlier this year, wrote Bull on February 3: "Could you explain exactly what that means, here, for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a "see also" section",[24] and "I'm ... reverting your edits. Please do not restore them until you can establish some sort of consensus that this kind of action is acceptable."

Given Bull's failure to self-revert his non-consensus mass deletions, after warnings and admonitions by multiple sysops and other editors, I'm bringing this here so that a previously uninvolved sysop can take action along the lines DGG has suggested above.[25]--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am going to use plain-speak here because it shouldn’t take so much of other editors’ time to boot tendentious, disruptive editors off the project. I’ve had ample experience dealing with Bulldog123’s disruption. He has a long and distinguished record of editing against consensus. The reason for this is he is a single-purpose account steadfastly opposed to any community consensus—no matter how global or article-specific—on these types of articles. He objects to them. He simply wants to achieve his ends at all cost. His crusade is pure disruption and far too many man-hours have been expended dealing with what is S.O.P. with Bulldog: Start an AfD to get rid of them. If that fails, tag-bomb the articles and delete whole swaths of articles. He never gives up. Here is his 500-count contributions list. A single-purpose editor. It’s high time that he finally be given an indefinite block. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no need to get consensus before pruning See also link farms. See also's are such a grey area that the only way to use it is to use common sense. The group identity articles are so problematic that I can definitely understand why Bulldog thinks they are not a good idea to include in see also sections. I would likely have done the same thing myself. No one has a duty to selfrevert if someone else disagrees with one's edit. If people don't like someone's edit they can revert it themselves. Calling Bulldog123 an SPA makes very little sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also the most diruptive part of the "group identity" debate has been the personal squibble between Bulldog123 and Epeefleche. I would definitely support an interaction ban between those two editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Maunus—There is overwhelming consensus here. Reflected in the above diffs. And comments by sysops and non-sysops alike. Bulldog is ignoring consensus. Bull is not disagreeing with "someone else". This is not a "personal squibble". Unless you extend it to the many persons he is squibbling with, about the same subject manner. Bull is bucking consensus, expressed over many articles, and during the course of a great deal of time. A topic ban on Bull editing a certain topic of articles may make sense. But given that much of his activity consists of deleting articles and/or cats and/or lists of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, a simple interaction ban placed on him would not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the ethnic group category debates I have sen have been characterized by overwhelming consensus either way. And if there is such a huge consensus why don't some of all the consensual editors revrt his edits. Then if he reverts he is editwarring and you actually have something to report him about.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about his deletions, which is reflected in the above diffs, reflects a clear consensus as to his mass deletions. As is also plainly reflected in the diffs, Bull has been reverted. And he has edit-warred. And he has simply then moved on to further deletions, and further edit-warring—he has engaged in this same precise pattern of editing for many months. The community has until now tried to deal with him through reverts and warnings and discussion. To no avail. There is of course something to report Bull about -- Bull's continued editing against consensus. That is poster-child disruptive behavior, per wp:consensus. As that guideline instructs, where other efforts have failed, AN/I is the appropriate place to bring issues with "intransigent editors", where: "Sysops ... may intervene to ... impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately." The guideline tells us further: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive.... The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." Bull's behavior is, as DGG pointed out, blockable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not giving in to this persistent baiting and harassment by the Epeefleche/Greg L duo without clearing up their misrepresentations. First of all, this whole thing about "Bulldog being unhappy that the articles weren't deleted, so he tries to tag-bomb them and remove content from them" is one big fat lie. I tagged nothing improperly (or without reason). That some editors misunderstand or choose not to understand why can be solved by simply asking for a clarification. I added a "tp:trivia" tag to List of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners because the entire lead was one massive pool of random trivia. User:Yaksar agreed with this and has since removed the trivia-laden lead. I knew that if I attempted removing it myself I would be reverted as a "vandal" by either Epeefleche or Greg L, so I instead of getting into an edit war, I added the tag -- which resulted in all kinds of hyperbolic accusations of "tag-bombing" and "tearing down an article." All untrue. Furthermore, I've asked Epeefleche numerous times for a self-imposed interaction ban between us. He responds to the first by merely deleting it off his talk page. He responds to the second request by rejecting the offer and instead rambling on and on about "me being an SPA". Epeefleche is only out here to "shop for a block" and railroad editors that oppose his trigger-happy ethnicity labeling. All my attempts to communicate with Epeefleche about content have been met by blanket reverts (such as this one here). If Epeefleche wants, he can simply re-add the "See Also" links - links that he added to prove a point during the AfD for List of black Golden Globe winners. However, I find nothing improper that I did by removing his spam (spam that continues to do this day -- with Epeefleche's persistent additions of See Also links like "List of select Jewish racecar drivers" to biography articles like Paul Newman).

I wish to bring to everyone's attention the staggering amount of See Also links Epeefleche added to articles of "Jewish sportspeople:" numbering in the hundreds. The vast majority of these bios have no references calling the sportspeople Jewish and a significant number are direct, blatant BLP violations.

I'll conclude by saying I'll HAPPILY agree to an interaction ban between Epeefleche and me (and if possible, between his pal Greg L and me). I've been trying to get one for months now. Bulldog123 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Points of clarification: 1) I'm entitled to delete messages on my talkpage. Bulldog's incivility in communicating with me is reflected in the warning Maunus gave Bull. It reflects just the sort of disruptive editor I have no reason to wish to hear from. As Maunus wrote to Bull, to close out Bull's last appearance at AN/I (emphasis added):

  "Please refrain from referring to other editors with any kinds of disparaging or pejorative terms, especially terms that evoke some kind of connections to historical atrocities or that are connected to nations genocide .... If you keep finding it too hard to interact civilly with other editors regarding the labelling of people by ethnicity/religion I suggest that you find a different area of the encyclopedia that you can edit with more peace of mind. Otherwise if the pattern of incivil interactions persist you may face sanctions."

2) As to Bull's personal attacks on me in his above post--at best, they are off-topic. At worst, they again breach our civility rules.

3) I appreciate Bull's offer now to not edit-war if his non-consensus mass deletions are restored.

4) Bull's response to requests that he follow consensus still is to label such requests "baiting" and "harassment". Similarly, Bull labels as "spam" what consensus has indicated are appropriate additions to articles. His closing comments are also of concern. Those portions of his post make me wonder whether Bull even now agrees to abide by wp:consensus. Notably, he has not said he would abide by consensus in the future. Instead, he says only that he will not buck consensus in this instance any longer because he has "no interest in "dealing" with [insult removed]" me.

5) Finally, I recognize that Bull would like to limit notice of his disruptive editing such as this AN/I, and input on it, by asking editors who point out his disruptions to not comment on his at AN/Is, etc. We don't "reward" disruptive editors, by in that manner muzzling those editors who point out their disruptive editing. Bull is, as indicated above, bound to follow the rules, including wp:consensus, and as the diffs indicate he has failed to do so for a long time now, despite many warnings by sysops and non-sysops alike. "Muzzling" the complainants is not the solution. Editing within wikipedia's guidelines is.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: When there is a list of items of this sort, there is invariably either see also's from the individual items, or a navigational box listing them. I agree there is generally no point in having both of them, but there needs to be something bidirectional tying them. (the "what links here" is normally useless, because of the extremely large number of items that appear there).

DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with what Maunus wrote at 23:45-23:47, 13 April 2011 and 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) above. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with the comments from Maunus that Tijfo098 highlighted. I would also mention that a person should only have a see also to a list if there is some special reason to believe that a reader would find that list useful, not merely because they are on the list. Do we add see also links to lists of people born in a place to the articles of every person ever born there? Do we add see also for the list of Harvard people to every person on it? NO. Those see also were behaving as categories and it was perfectly reasonable to remove them. If you want to include it on the article of everyone who falls into a category, it should be just that a category not a see also. Monty₈₄₅ 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus's comments were addressed; one has to read the diffs and the guideline to see that they had already been addressed. Also, this is a discussion about a violation of wp:consensus, through disruptive editing. It is not a re-opening of the underlying substantive consensus discussion, formed by many editors over many months. Such a red herring derails us from the focus of this AN/I.

The consensus that such edits by Bull are inappropriate is reflected plainly, in the above diffs. See, e.g., the comments over an extended period of time by sysops Bearian, DGG, Ironholds, and ChedDavis, and editors Shearonlink, Adabow, GregL, Yolgnu, Hmains, Moxy, Sift&Winnow, Unitanode, and Ed Fitzgerald (let alone my own). We're looking at the consensus of over a dozen editors, many of them sysops, with an aggregate of well over half a million edits. Bull clearly continued, over many months of warnings and input, to ignore consensus. This, as the guideline tells us, is behavior worthy of sanctions. Furthermore, Bull's response fails to suggest that he, even yet, accepts the strictures of wp:consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the edits Greg and Bull made to the DRV and the CFD at Category:Jewish American businesspeople (the CfD of which is still active) as well. Greg's edits were very, very, sarcastic. The upshot is they are trying to implement an overly strict/deletionist interpretation of WP:OCAT that the community has not expressed a consensus for Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• What can I say? That was a rare instance where I actually agreed with Bulldog123. That wasn’t because BullDog’s arguments were any more eloquent, but because a list of Jewish business people could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value to our readership and would just serve as more of a curiosity than anything else. I stated as much there and other editors agreed with that. Chock up the fact that I agreed with Bulldog in that instance as merely being the product of the effort to create “ethnic classes”-related articles having stepped over the line into absurdity. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Did anyone see that Bulldog has now mass-CfD American politicians of European descent? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:EGRS#Special_subcategories. Bulldog123 08:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• According to WP:Single-purpose account, a single-purpose editor is one whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. A perusal of Bulldog123’s contributions is very suggestive that he is a single-purpose account. The number of AfDs he has has nominated, only to see the nom fail, that then resulted in editwarring is troubling. Greg L (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is the concentration, not whether or not the edits or nominations are valid/reasonable/correct. For example, I do not think small shopping malls likely to be notable; I've nominated some for deletion via prod or AfD; consensus agrees with me, & they get deleted.If I did nothing else here but nominate shopping malls for deletion, most but not all of which were correct nominations, this would not be a reasonable way of working at Wikipedia. If I nominated every shopping mall I could find, small, or large, in batches, & removed all links to them whether or not they got deleted, I would be editing disruptively. If I did nothing else, I would be a disruptive SPA. The solution to this problem is for Bulldog to diversify his interests, not to stop editing. Ethnicity is important, but a concentration of edits involving ethnicity strikes me as a little questionable. That all the edits are removing information about ethnicity strikes me as particularly questionable. (Obviously it would be much more dubious if it were one particular ethnicity, but this does not seem to be the case.) DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If “diversify” meant “find something other to do that doesn’t generate so much conflict”, I agree with you. Yes, part of the problem, as you say, is one of “concentration”, which appears to mean “focus” on a particular topic. But we also have editors who focus, or specialize on narrow issues, such as atomic nuclides. That sort of thing is great; we need specialists. The concern I have with Bulldog123’s edits is the focus is not one of building the project but of ridding it of a whole broad class of articles when there is no community consensus to do so. Thus, his editing conduct could fairly be described as tearing down the project over a philosophical point of view over the propriety of an encyclopedia discussing such things. More troubling is he seems to be immune to social pressure; very little about his contributions history suggests otherwise. Given an honest reading of his contributions history, what is it about this particular case of being a WP:Single-purpose account does not warrant a more definitive remedy? Greg L (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that User:Foghlopy has deliberately falsified references in History of medicine. As I am an involved party I am coming here to request that another administrator takes the appropriate action.

I removed what seemed to me to be highly dubious information here and [26] and a similar addition to the Stethoscope article. This was based on a search of the cited book available in gbook snippet view which failed to verify the sources. Foghlopy responded by immediately reverting and posting on their talk page convincing looking quotations from the book. I subsequently opened an RfC on this and User: Tom Morris went to a great deal of effort to confirm that the reference failed verification in a library copy.

As well as wasting my time, and the time of all those who took part in the RfC, Foghlopy has succeeded in causing an editor to make a special trip to a library in London to resolve this. That's a considerable amount of disruption for very little effort on their part. SpinningSpark 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Nothing checks out. I even tried 56 BC and other phrases from the quotations in google snippets. Lets see if Foghlopy can explain here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the quotations given on Foghlopy's talkpage are not in good English. Certainly not what one would expect from a scholar writing this kind of work in the '40's and '50's. This may just be typos in the copying I suppose but it seems odd. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Could it be that Foghlopy is taking his quotes from a Chinese translation of the book? Older Chinese translations of scientific works (those done in the PRC) were notorious for this kind of falsification, and if that's where the editor's getting his quotes from it's possible he's not the one committing the act of falsification. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

While that may be possible, Foghlopy cites Kessinger as the publisher and I am suspecting that this is more some kind of test of Wikipedia's ability to remove false information. The user has been around since 2009 but has done nothing else other than occassionally return to modify the same edits as if trying to invite a response. If this is correct, then it is a disruption only account. Since their initial response to me at the beginning of the month, which happened very quickly, they have not responded to my request for scans of the book pages on their talk page, nor to the RfC. I can't help recalling that there was a controversial Wikiversity project to carry out just such testing around the same time frame and checkuser may be appropriate to see if there are any more of these. SpinningSpark 06:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean the actual chinese translation has nonsense added? I can see that for the stethoscope but why would they add patent nonsense about surgeons having ask the church's permission for drugs or operations? Just to highlight how enlightened they were in comparison?Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't make a special trip: I generally don't for resource requests unless the topic is something of immense interest. I wait until I'm going to the library anyway: I was there doing research in my own field (philosphy) and took half an hour or so to look up this reference. The books on the history of medicine are only a few doors down from the philosophy books. That said, if the community feel that based on my evidence User:Foghlopy is making bad-faith edits, it would certainly be a reasonable thing to implement a punitive block if only to discourage people from making up citations and potentially wasting the time of WP:WRE volunteers in the future. Ideally, I'd like to spend time helping good-faith editors make articles better rather than tidying up dodgy citations. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked him. He hasn't responded further to the issues raised here or on his talkpage. If it all turns out to be an innocent mistake, which currently seems unlikely, he can appeal and produce the evidence.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential comment: am I the only person reading who considers any reason to make a trip to the library -- especially a well-equipped one -- is never a disruptive one? Or am I the only one here who would welcome an excuse to make a trip thence? (Not that I believe this justifies adding garbage to articles, but I couldn't get too angry were I in this situation.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey - is that an offer? Could you go to a big city library and look some thing up for me in the Canadian dictionary of slang etc? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Send me a list. (I'm only half-kidding, too.) Next chance I get to go to one with a Canadian dictionary of slang in its collection (there's a decent research library here & it's just down the street from me, so to speak, but I don't know if it has the reference work you're asking for), I'll see what I can find. -- llywrch (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider the trip to the library disruptive: as I said, I go there anyway and don't make special trips just for looking things up for Wikipedia. I'm not at all angry about doing the research–just as I wouldn't get very angry about having to do jury duty–but I do think that when people are discovered to be inserting dodgy references, the full weight of an indefinite block or some equally severe punishment should fall upon them as a preventative measure: they have still abused the trust of other Wikipedians. I have absolutely no complaint about doing library research, but I do prefer doing it when the result is constructive rather than disciplinary. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. I'm having a difficult time communicating with admin user Rklawton in a thread (link/permalink) at the talk page for our article on Prescott Bush, grandfather to George W. Bush. The conflict started after he and another user deleted the only mention in the article of the matter of Geronimo's bones, a single "see also" link to our article on the Native American Chief.

I'm not asking for help with the content dispute, which has to do with whether allegations should be included in the article that Prescott Bush dug up bones from a graveyard when he was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918, and then presented those to his pals in Yale's Skull and Bones society as being those of Geronimo, who was buried at Fort Sill in 1909.

I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing. After I objected to his post saying I was "sneaking around", and I provided further basis in policy for including the content, he wrote, "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

By saying there was "consensus not to add that kind of crap" he appears to have meant anything critical of Prescott Bush, even if that criticism does happen to have been reported by every major news outlet in the United States, and been discussed at some length in at least three books. An investigation of this article's history gives me the strong impression that Rklawton, in concert with one other editor primarily, has been essentially standing guard over this article, intimidating other editors who seek to add any critical information.

( Editors who want to examine that assertion further should review this section of our article, which has been a special point of focus, and especially should compare the weight given there to the 2004 article from The Guardian − not quoted from at all, and dismissed as the work of a "conspiracy theorist" − to the weight given to this nearly illegible primary source and this 2003 statement from the Anti-Defamation League, quoted essentially in its entirety to dismiss the allegations in the later 2004 Guardian article as "an internet rumor". )

I next posted additional policy links and discussion to the talk page, and Rklawton responded with this post:

The "see also" link that Rklawton was objecting to here had been in the article, subject to some recent edit warring, for at least a year. He and another user deleted it on April 7th (UTC), I restored it, once, posting at length to the talk page about the policy basis for doing so, and he again deleted it, three hours later. I did agree on the talk page, btw, that a "see also" link wasn't the right place for this content, and stated my intention there, prior to Rklawton's comment above, to add it to the body of the article, something I haven't done yet.

I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful).  Sandstein  13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Far from having "been debunked by everyone", what Collect is calling "the rumor" has been "reported by everyone", i.e. (nearly?) every major news organization in America, CNN, FOX, the AP, the NYT; you name it. And his assertion about the tribal representative's attorney, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, is a ludicrous distortion of his statement. Clark said, truthfully, that no one knows whether the skull the secret society has is Geronimo's, and that the action sought, among other things, to determine that. To get from that statement to Collect's not a "scintilla of truth to the tale" requires some pretty determined acrobatics.

Further, the suit was dismissed only because the U.S. government refused to waive its immunity re the Fort Sill theft, and because the grave-robbery law it was in part filed under excludes remains stolen from Native American burial sites before 1990. Its dismissal says nothing at all about whether Prescott Bush and his fellow club members "crooked" bones and other items from a grave in 1918. "Crooked", btw, is a euphemism that club members use to refer to their practice of stealing things from non-members, aka "barbarians" in their parlance, that they happen to want to put on display in their clubhouse on the Yale campus.

Skull and Bones has admitted that they have a skull, it's a fact that they call it "Geronimo's skull", it's been widely reported that they use it in their initiation rituals, and the tradition within the club has always been that Prescott Bush, along with some other so-called "Bonesmen", dug it up from the Fort Sill cemetery where Geronimo was buried, when Bush was stationed there in 1918. That Prescott and his pals are likely to have mistaken the grave and taken the remains of some unnamed person, rather than Geronimo, doesn't make this extremely well-sourced information any less interesting or any less relevant to the article about him. And the only source that I've seen Collect present on the article's talk page to support his "debunked" is from a biographer who Collect describes there by saying, "Kitty Kelley is not the best of all sources."

By answering the above, I do not intend to suggest that this AN/I thread is about article content: It most emphatically is not, and I'll not bother to respond to misstatements about content, again. I posted here in an attempt to address article ownership and battleground behavior, and those are the only matters that I'm asking administrators consider.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.

I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.

I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.

I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [34] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [35] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh anent cleansing articles -- look at [36], and wholesale removal of RS sources at [37] when it suits his fancy. And, fun of funs, removing [38] from Prescott Bush presumably becasue it was favourable to him. Cheere. Collect (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.

But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.

Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fyi: Collect just posted a "Wikiquette alerts" complaint about me (link/permalink) citing, in part, comments I've made in this present thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And the primary basis of that post was your ongoing incivility, wherein you appear to blame the entire problems of the world on me.  :) Noting also your forumshopping here about whether an extensive quote verging on copyvio and vaguely related to the journal belongs in an article thereon. Now might you post somewhere without invoking my name or following me to various articles? Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, he apparently managed to completely misread Jclemens comment -- he stated that 2 reverts in 2 days was not "edit warring" in his opinion. But OS seems to relish digging through Wikipedia's search function in order to assuage his own incivility. I rather think digging through every edit a person has made indicates something of an obsession. Collect (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to "assuage" and I didn't misread anything, nor will any other editor who examines the reasons admin King of Hearts gave for blocking Collect in the link Collect himself provided above. So, no, not much "digging" was necessary to find that, and no "obsession" either.

And re the "verging on copyvio and vaguely related" characterization he uses above to justify his actions and discredit mine, the cynicism in that just astounds me. It really (!) amazes me that he could try to use something in which he's so indisputably and egregiously in the wrong to try to accuse me of misconduct and copyright violation. The strategy seems to be to fling whatever mud he thinks might possibly stick.

I can only guess that Collect is hoping users won't bother to click a link to examine his accusations. I'm hoping you will. If you don't examine any other claim he's made, please examine this one.

I don't "blame the entire problems of the world" on Collect, either. I only want him to be accountable for the ones that he purposely creates.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the amusing irony of apparently being characterized by Rklawton as a "clueless noob" at WQA, of all places, this really is getting old. I'd be really glad if anyone wants to take the time to carefully examine the allegations posted at WQA in their context, but to try to keep from fanning the flames I don't intend to reply to the substance of Collect's or Rklawton's accusations unless an admin wants to ask me about some specific point.

It's probably safe to say that if any ordinary editor had exhibited the same degree of article ownership and ongoing attacks toward an admin as Rklawton and now Collect have felt free to employ here and elsewhere, and had repeatedly demonstrated every intention of continuing the same behavior, that the problem would have been dealt with before things got to this point.

I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have better luck if you decided not to make every post about personal conflicts which you seem to attract? I find it quite tiresome to find my name in every post you make, and I suspect the same is true of Mr. Lawton. Collect (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm horribly ashamed for attracting so much conflict by reverting one edit and proposing the addition of impeccably sourced content to an article that you and Rklawton hold dear. It was hugely presumptuous of me to have forced him to become so aggressive and contemptuous like that.

I didn't intend to respond to you again, but an accusation coming from you that I attract conflict is just too ridiculous. People here are smart enough to look at our respective block logs, at the number of times others have found it necessary to start an RfC about either of us, or raise an issue here, at any other board, or at WQA about either of us. They can be trusted to decide fairly which of us attracts personal conflicts. It may save others some time, though, if I mention that your fresh new WQA complaint is the first time anyone's ever been motivated to favor me with that kind of attention that I can recall. I'd really welcome close scrutiny of that by neutral parties, btw.

I'm sorry that you don't like seeing your name in my posts: I tend not to address you directly because I've found doing so nearly always results in interminable, wrangling debates that I view as wholly unproductive. I don't intend any disrespect by it, but I'm also not willing to debate you endlessly, either. With that explanation, I'm going to return to that expedient: I doubt anyone here is really interested in seeing us argue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An RfC with 14 CANVASSED votestacking participants of which 3 are now permanently banned from WP, and another 5 have not appeared since on WP? Wow. All you can do is dredge up the past instead of looking at the present. Sorry OS, I happen to think you need a mirror instead of a microscope. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no doubt you were framed, and no doubt the six admins who've blocked you were all biased against you, too, as have been all the users who've brought complaints against you here, as well. I'd have no occasion to "dredge up the past", as you put it, or even to mention it at all, if you'd learned from it to change your behavior. But you wanted more recent? After you extended this to WQA I saw that last month when you filed a report there about a different editor that you've been fighting with interminably, that you went on the attack when a wholly well-intentioned and unbiased editor who only wanted to help tried to do so. I'm sure you feel you were completely right to do so. I'm also sure that most other editors will see your conduct in that thread very differently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since three of the folks who were CANVASSED are now permanently gone, and five of the others have made absolutely zero article posts since, and the initiator actually apologized to me, I wonder just what you are (thinking.) The discussions about the latest "blocks" are also clear. Yet you seem to think that attacking me in some way improves your case against an admin? Sorry -- your TLDR wall of text postings here show your preoccupation all too well. Thanks. Also I note you seem to edit your prior posts without adding new timestamps, those who look back will see your changes. Collect (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Was "I wonder just what you are (thinking.)" meant to be clever? I'll tell you what I'm thinking:

I'm thinking that canvassing or not, a person really has to work at it to get people as angry as you clearly did. I'm thinking you're the only one I saw who apologized, and that your "last-minute acknowledgment on the eve of arbitration", as Newyorkbrad put it, just barely tipped the scales for ArbCom to decline the case.

I'm also thinking it might not have been the best plan to take my single mention of your RfC/U and run with it the way you have: If user Phoenix of9 actually apologized to you for filing the complaint, as you say he did, then it seems pretty odd that he would have followed that up six months later with this request to have you blocked based on that RfC/U proceeding. Since you're so eager to prove yourself in the right about this, and since you've said before that Phoenix apologized to to you for starting the RfC/U, I'm sure you'll be glad to clear up any doubt by showing us all where he did so?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The one who apologized by email was Ikip who had drafted the RFC/U. He also posted on other pages indicating an apology. Phoenix is the one to whom Jimbo said: Your behavior and attitude in the ANI thread is not ok. (where Pof9 sought to have the Bible banned as "hate speech" from all Wikipedia articles), and whose history at AN/I is colorful. So Pof9 is quite irrelevant here, and your desire to prolong this discourse seems quite inutile for benefiting Wikipedia at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Phoenix_of9 isn't here to defend himself, I don't mind doing so. Here's what he actually said, in the same thread that you pulled your "not ok" criticism from: "I'm not saying any quote from the bible is 'hate speech'; I am talking about 'Leviticus 20:13' which seems to call for killing of gay people." Btw, according to the RfC's revision history it actually was Phoenix_of9, not ikip, who initiated the process. Good to hear that ikip sent you an e-mail, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note that Ikip drafted the page in his own userspace. We have long since reconciled. I consider the person who writes the draft to be the writer. YMMV. And apparently does. Note, however, WRT Jimbo's words to Pof9 - I did not write Jimbo's words. I guess you seem to elide that part. Cheers. I think if you keep posting, you can keep this an active thread for another year or so. <g> Collect (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea about whatever is going on between Ohiostandard and Collect (although Collect's actions here certainly don't look good), but I took a look at the issue relating to Prescott Bush. I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here, but I do see what appears to be a major failure to assume good faith on the part of Rklawton (and the personal attacks/implications of being "sneaky", etc.) on his part are unbefitting what I would expect from an administrator. Rklawton should have simply pointed Ohiostandard to the previous discussion on the issue of Geromino's bones - it was discussed in 2007 in what is now an archived portion of the talk page - and not proceeded to attack OS. Likewise, perhaps Ohiostandard could have looked there after being told "it was discussed" and attempted to bring the concerns to the talk page again. Kansan (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kansan, for taking the time to sift this, even to searching the article archives yourself. I appreciate that, because although the exchange you've suggested re the archives actually did take place, your comment prompted me to search again, and that turned up an additional thread, from 2009, beyond the "2006" material I'd already seen. ( It actually includes a couple of 2007 - 2008 posts, too. ) I've now read the archive in its entirety, but I still didn't find anything that could remotely support Rklawton's statement, viz. "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

May I also mention what seems to be a small misunderstanding that I think might stem from Collect's having started a WQA report? You wrote, "I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here". If that's your opinion, it's fine, of course, but then I'm confused by the "agree", since no one had said that previously. The WQA complaint that was started didn't name Rklawton as a "defendant"; it was filed by Collect against me. His report says, with Rklawton's concurrence, that he believes I've insulted the two of them in this present thread, and also just him, Collect, separately.

While the name-calling and such that's been directed my way has been pretty troubling, it's the battleground/ownership problem that's most disturbing to me since Rklawton and Collect have made it clear that they think they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every intention of continuing the same behavior. As I wrote at the outset, "I'm not asking for help with the content dispute ... I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing." Again, I really appreciate the significant time and work you've put in to help sort this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the part where OS writes that he's "tired of being civil." I don't see how making personal attacks or feigning offense could be considered civil. Indeed, OS is one of the most unpleasant editors I've run across, though I don't keep a list. Never mind his Quixote-like quest to find some way to add a myth/rumor to a well written, high profile biographical article, his attempts at Wikilawyering are what puts him over the top. Seriously, how many people here enjoy wasting their time on that sort of crap? It's far more pleasant for one editor to call another a "jerk" if need be than to have him post an out of context and ridiculously applied quote from an arb-com write-up on a case unrelated to the subject or any of its editors in a bald-faced effort to try to intimidate or bully people into accepting his non-neutral point of view. In OS's case, he picked the wrong editor. I know an ass when I see one, and I'm not afraid to call him out on it or to stand up to him. Rklawton (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. This is what you're referring to:

"I've tried hard to remain civil and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?" (emphasis added)

I'm guessing that your remarks represent a response driven by overcharged emotions rather than by any intentional malice, and that you'll think better of them shortly. If that occurs, and you'd like to delete your post in the next few hours, you're welcome to do so, along with this reply, if no one has responded below by then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. A person who will leave so direct and intentional an insult in place for 30 hours isn't going to come to his senses any time soon. No apology then, and no retraction; and every indication short of an explicit statement that he intends to continue in the same way.

Everyone here, both administrators and regular editors, knows that a non-admin would have been blocked and article-banned days ago for the progressively escalating battleground behavior and the ownership promise to revert critical content on sight.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember the editor-in-chief of a very prominent newspaper who implied on this board that Jimmy or the Foundation had been bought off or intimidated by legal threats to delete the BLP of a billionaire who was involved in a very unpleasant controversy? That angered me, but what prompted me into action was that Jimmy posted a message to the debate thread here saying he and the Foundation were leaving it up to us to decide whether we would have an article about the man or not, and what it would include.

The process and outcome of our collective decision could have given a billionaire grounds to sue the Foundation into the next century if we'd handled those irresponsibly. That was a "cast your bread upon the waters" kind of choice Jimmy made, if you follow; it took serious stones. How can you not honor something like that?

I put off my RL work, and everything else, and was able to devote something like the next 16 hours to finding every source I could about the man and the controversy he was involved in. I did that because I felt pride in our collective enterprise, and I wanted our editorial and research process to be painstakingly scrupulous in the matter. I wanted it to be more so, in fact, than the editorial process of the newspaper our critic represented. And it was.

I was pleased to have had the privilege of helping contribute to that result, like a great many other editors did, too: I finished my research, wrote up my results, and posted a long analysis and conclusion. ( Please don't discuss the topic here; the thread is in archive 644 if anyone feels he has to look.) Then I forgot about Wikipedia for few days. I didn't even thank him for the comment, except on my talk page (which I'm sure he never saw) because I felt kind of embarrassed by the praise. But this was one of the comments that followed my post, with apologies in advance for the argumentum,

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)       

I don't write articles here, or I haven't yet, anyway. I'm not bad at research, though, and I like doing it. Every few months or so I take on some larger project that way, but most of the time I spend here, I do bits and bobs, often with existing political articles. I write for publication very slowly, though, so I usually just offer what resources and results I can on talk pages, with occasional attempts to help out on some of the boards. So no articles, and I don't want to be an admin, either.

But we all bring what we can offer to the party. I've been glad to bring that, but I'd guess that over 20 admins must have seen this thread now, and among those, only Sandstein and a new admin, Boing! said Zebedee, have even commented. We all know the outcome would have been very different if Rklawton wasn't an administrator. I don't really blame him, though: He's just a hothead who thinks that being an administrator means he's privileged to ignore our putative social contract. It turns out he's right: I didn't know it was that way here. But I'm not especially enthusiastic about volunteering my time in a context where I'm a second class citizen, and the first class ones are free to treat the rest of us with such contempt.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(removed by Ohiostandard at [39] ) The diff is [40]. Direct response to This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I note that you extensively relied on "court documents" which is contrary to WP:BLP on the topic. Thank you for bringing my attention to what was apparently an eminently deletable article. Collect (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the correct context for the quotation I provided above, they'll need to locate it in Archive 644 directly, rather than relying on the foregoing statement or the diff it includes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I give the exact diff. Are you insinuating in any way that I gave an "incorrect context" to the quote for which you gave absolutely no context at all? Or is this again "let's see if I can blame Collect for something since he found out that I removed his post from the noticeboard again" time? Collect (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I'm an admin and I'm reasonably sympathetic to your position on the actual content matter (though not so much as to take an active interest in the article), but this looked to all the world like a spat which would be better handled through a drama-defusing process like RFC rather than trying to get people censured through a straw poll at ANI. As for the "we know it would be different if Rklawton weren't an admin" thing, I don't see very much in here which has anything to do with whether Rklawton is an admin. You can't simply assume that if you take something to ANI and nobody pays much attention that it's because the other party is an admin. And of course you haven't helped your cause at all by continuing to be incivil in your closing statement above. This should probably be closed now, and taken to a more appropriate venue to concentrate on the content problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The next paragraph summarizes why I brought this to AN/I. In hindsight, it would have been more productive to have posted something similarly concise right at the outset.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (late edit)

Chris, I've been asking for help here for six days, and everyone's looked the other way. I had the impudence to perform a revert of exactly one edit and to propose some impeccably sourced content on the corresponding talk page that an admin didn't like. For exactly that, and for very politely citing the policies that support that content for literally days, I've been been told I'd be reverted on sight, that my behavior was "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and I've been called "sneaking", "disruptive", "a wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". I never responded in kind; not once. Your fellow admin's friend started a WQA thread against me, with this as his leading complaint. You look at that link, and then you tell us all if someone who's capable of that degree of willful misrepresentation is someone who's valuable to the task of building an encyclopedia. A person who tried that in a RL job would be fired on the spot. These two have made it clear they intend to continue their behavior, and I finally got it that no admin here cared.

So I decided regular users might, and I initiated a !vote. I admit I was angry by then. A saint would have been. And what happened? Someone collapsed the attempt, calling it "a farce". I'm still angry, and despite your protestations to the contrary, it's simply preposterous to think that any non-admin would have gotten by with half so much. I admit I've been getting much less patient as the days have gone by, but any irritation I've expressed still hasn't amounted to 20% of what I've been dealt. Take a look at my extremely patient response to that strategic WQA, for example. So re your description of me as "continuing to be uncivil", I wasn't, until a short while ago, but sauce-goose-gander, you know? I'll put it in Rklawton's terms, since you'd have us believe we're all on an equal footing here, and since you evidently won't block anyone for talking that way: Your wish to close this without any consequence at all for the bullshit behavior Rklawton allows himself is a sneaking, dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick. Oh, and you're an ass. How does that make you feel?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think that it's only admins who get away with serial incivility on here then you're another thing coming. I can think of plenty of non-admins who haven't been blocked for that sort of material. That may be a failing of the community as a whole, but it's a different one from our supposed silence on the matter because one of the involved is an admin. The consensus at WQA was that Collect didn't exactly come out smelling of roses himself. Indeed, the first few replies on this thread were supportive of your position. But then you were readily baited into having a huge argument about it and at that point I wager most people switched off. I'm simply explaining why no action was taken here, and why (if you continue to be so easily goaded into replying to those you consider are attacking you) it's unlikely that a venue like ANI, which works best when things are kept as to-the-point as possible, is not going to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good advice and thank you for responding so well. May I ask what you suggest for going forward since there hasn't been the least indication of any intention to change the behavior, and since I don't think it's reasonable that I should have to routinely be called insulting names to be able to contribute here?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But wait a minute: I know people who are brought here for that kind of behavior are at the very least expected to promise to refrain from doing so in the future. There's not been any indication of that; very much the contrary, actually, right in this thread, even. So what then?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein and Chris Cunningham have both suggested an RfC. This isn't so much a matter of admins not responding to you as it is you not listening to their suggestions when they do respond. 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciated all of Sandstein's comment, 28bytes, but his incidental mention of an RfC was for the corresponding content dispute, not for the behavioral problem that brought this here. And while Chris' suggestion of an RfC/U was one possibile path to resolution, I'm more pleased still that subsequent comments have made it clear that it won't be neccesary to resort to that at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have been reading this issue after coming to it after it had been live for a few hours, and thus did not comment then. However, in response to subsequent comments, I shall do so now (FWIW). Firstly, and this was apparent from the start, Rklawton had not been acting to the standard expected of an admin - or any experienced editor. This has been noted and agreed, and some suggestions made on how to resolve it. The issue then becomes one of what to do in this instance. It has been suggested that if the account did not have admin flags then they would have been blocked, but I am not sure if this is the case. If it was a new account, and all the edits were confrontational and indelicately voiced, then perhaps - as a last chance to get their house in order. If they were an established editor, then their contributions would have been reviewed to see if this was part of a pattern or a solitary (or at least infrequent) episode in an otherwise okay history. If it was part of a pattern, then there may have been calls for a RfC/U with a view to block (or in this instance, desysop) or ban or other restriction. To be honest, I do not seem to recall any recent or major issue with Rklawton, and neither has a history of bad interactions been presented, so we must assume that this is a rare instance of sub standard behaviour. If this is the case, do we (or a member) officially warn the admin over future conduct? I think this is something that needs consensus - and one is not apparent. The editor/admin in question knows that there has been an ANI discussion and is almost certainly aware of the comments made, so there is no point in placing a little notice on their page. What is important is how Rklawton responds to the concerns raised here. If they take the issues on board, and their future communications do not repeat the poor examples given there then everything is fine and the matter may be consigned to the past. If, however, and as alleged, that they form the idea that they are immune to community concerns and embark on further inappropriate interactions with other members of the community then they will find themselves back at ANI, or involved in an ArbCom Request, where these sections above will be used in evidence of an pattern of behaviour.
• The point I am trying to make is that an issue has been presented and hopefully directed toward a resolution that does not, as yet, involve warnings or sanctions. This does not mean that the concerns are disregarded. If these or similar issues are again the subject to further reports, then they will form part of any future considerations. Exactly the same as if the editor was another established contributor. This is not a place for punishment, but where the community tries to resolve issues going forward - it is pretty standard practice. At least, that is my view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

LHvU, with your comment, especially, I finally feel like I've been heard here. I appreciate it. I'd not like to see this collapsed further, because of the search problem that introduces, but if any administrator wants to archive the thread manually, I'd be fine with that at this point. Best thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• 208.93.62.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP above has just made a threat of violence at Stanford University. (See this diff.) However, the IP appears to be in Texas and Stanford is in California, so I am not certain whether this is likely to be real. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked half an hour ago. Given the vagueness of the threat there is fleetingly little chance that a) it is a specific danger to someone and b) we or the authorities can do anything about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notify emergencywikimedia.org and be done with it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with guessing whether a threat is real. Sooner or later someone is going to guess wrong. Imagine what will happen if someone commits a violent act after posting a threat to Wikipedia and we blew it off as not being a serious threat. Then it makes the evening news as "The Wikipeda Murderer." Far better too simply follow Wikipedia policy (WP:VIOLENCE), especially the sections "Treat all claims seriously," "Contact the Wikimedia Foundation ... by emailing 'emergency [at] wikimedia.org'," and "notify Wikipedia administrators quickly." I assume from the fact that the IP was blocked that someone already notified the admins in this case. Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, to quote Terry Pratchett, million to one shots come up nine times out of ten. Let's follow our procedures seriously and make sure that if a tragedy does occur, it is not on our hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an obscure article that has a range of IP editors that keep re-adding original research. I don't want to get hit with a 3RR, so I'm requesting some admin help in dealing with it. Here are the diffs:

• 189.32.137.46 (talk · contribs) First edit and second edit
• 189.32.132.190 (talk · contribs) third edit
• 189.32.143.190 (talk · contribs) fourth edit
• 189.32.137.46 (talk · contribs) fifth and sixth edit

This probably qualifies for 3RR, but with the wandering IP address, it's hard to drop a warning. They keep making the same changes without discussing them. The first part, "Another strong evidence of abiogenic origin of petroleum and natural gas is the association with helium" is just plainly original research. It's neither strong evidence nor, would some argue, it's even evidence. The second part is a violation of undue weight, since there is precisely one article that supports this abiogenic origin. Anyways, this is frustrating, I have no way to stop them, and they're putting in frankly incorrect information. APO is a fringe topic about a long-ago discredited theory that oil doesn't come from dead plants. Any help would be greatly appreciated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a week. Should the disruption continue after the protection expires, it can be reinstated for a longer period. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IP editor continues to edit war by disruption through refusing to stop re-adding unreferenced speculative material to articles beyond a level four warning. The editor is also attacking other editors by posting material like this [41] to an article. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try at WP:AIV, you'll probably get quicker action there. GiantSnowman 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input GiantSnowman; I've grown weary at times in the past having AIV declaring stuff "insufficiently warned" etc., but I'll give it a shot. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

75.181.137.167 (talk · contribs) has been making continuous disruptive edits on numerous pages. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] and [49].

All of these disruptive edits have been in the context of changing RIAA certifications to incorrect values. Links to the actual RIAA certifications of the respective albums are linked on the pages, but User has been adamant on increasing certification values that are clearly erroneous as they are not listed on the RIAA's website.

For example, User has repeatably changed the RIAA certification of Animalize to 2xPlatinum [50], while the RIAA website has Animalize certified at 1xPlatinum. [51] The other pages listed above have similar disruptive edits made by User.

I have tried to encourage the user to read the RIAA certification page which explains how the RIAA calculates certification values of album shipments to no avail, as the user continues to make disruptive edits to the pages, referencing fansites such as kissasylum.com as reference. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

After you explain to him that what he's doing is wrong and show him the right way to do it, any continued 'doing it' is considered vandalism in my book. Warn and block (HG code 'factual errors'). Sven Manguard Wha? 07:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So at this point I should explain again what the User is doing wrong and issue an "official" warning? To the best of my knowledge, I'm not authorized to block a user, what does the "HG code" mean? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of AIV, and choose a random IP that had been removed as blocked, AIV History. In most cases there are 3-4 escalating warnings on the talk page of the IP, (mostly from non-admins) followed by the report to AIV once the IP vandalizes after a level 4 warning, and if everything is in order, the IP gets blocked for awhile by a reviewing admin, and the bot removes the entry. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings. As an aside, HG stands for Huggle, which is one of the popular anti vandalism tools, one of the options there is to revert and warn for 'factual errors'. Monty₈₄₅ 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User has slowed down considerably since I started this thread, though I did issue a warning for vandalizing my user page. [52] Should I go and give a "subst:uw-vandalism2" warning for each of the pages I've found User to have made disruptive edits on? That would make it about eight or so more warnings to give. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Lorem Ip has been editing ANIs after they have closed:

13:41, 14 April 2011 Diff

15:46, 14 April 2011 Diff

Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first diff isn't showing what I think you want it to show. Either way, I think the best course of action is to politely tell Lorem that once a conversation is closed, people don't read it, and that therefore if there is an issue, he should start a new thread to discuss it, and if there is not an issue, he should just move on. Sure the second link is a bit... angry, but I don't see any malice behind him posting it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, I will politely tell Lorem that once a conversation is closed, people don't read it, and that therefore if there is an issue, he should start a new thread to discuss it, and if there is not an issue, he should just move on. Good advice.

I have no issue with whether he is angry, just a minor annoyance about him doing so in a way that nobody who follows the rules can respond to.

Please mark as resolved and/or closed. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This AFD, which nominates articles on a particular administration/government/ministry of the Canadian government, needs to be closed. Leaving it open is just providing a forum for off-topic diatribes and personal attacks.[53] The nominator Skookum1 (talk · contribs) is clearly involved in this from an ideological standpoint, as he has repeatedly flooded the discussion with criticism of Harper and accusations that those !voting keep are Harper lackeys, so I think he needs a stern talking to as well. postdlf (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You need a stern talking to yourself, for being partisan in the AfD and then wanting it closed in your favour. I don't really care to hear a "stern talking to" from someone who's shown partisan equivocation throughout your presence in the AfD; you can claim you were neutral, but you weren't.....a stern talking to my ass, your denials of the obvious in the AfD and your dismissla or ignoring of others aggreeing with me - that's highly notable as partisan activity. Pot kettle black. NOT listening to someone's objections about POV and being as dismissive as you are on POV grounds AND as "personal attack"....sheesh...apparently adminship, for all the humility and butt-kissing it takes to get it, doesn't require those traits after you actually get the "job". wikipedia - too many admins, too much power with too little knowledge attached to it...I know I'm not the first contributing editor that's been driven away by such witchhunts, nor will I be the last. The clubbiness and condescension in this ANI and in the AfD that led to it is shocking; GoodDay's nasty behaviour goes unaddressed; gang up on the victim, he's upset, he should be condemend for not liking us ramming bullshit down his throat and making a political problem into a personal one...it's ALL OF YOU who made this a personal attack as a way to not address the SPAM/POV at work....all of you need to take a humble pill, you're sickeningly arrogant about all of this...I'm going to bed, I should have known better than to look at your arrogant garbage; another day wasted arguing with fools-with-power...Harper and his information management team won, another alienated editor leaves outraged by the lack of integrity and the gangbang mentality of ANIs raised to shut down discussion....The AfD was railroaded, as also I have been.....and insulted and degraded and patronized in the process...while being called "holier than thou" (below) by those who clearly are themselves....Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur - the nominator has gone a little off the reservation, insofar as comments regarding the subject (and not the article) have grown more frequent as the debate rages on. Interestingly, it does not look like a WP:TRAINWRECK just yet, though that's not to say it won't find its way there. (Caveat: I recommended Keep) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The articles were a trainwreck dressed up in nice grey serge....Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I urge admins to put this editor under very close scrutiny. He really doesn't get NPOV at all, and he thinks everyone here either part of The Conspiracy, or is just a complete retard as far as understanding neutrality goes compared to his awesomeness (oh, and if you're not Canadian, you know jack shit, period, apparently). He has a habit of making extremely long ranting posts, but even just scanning them it doesn't take long for statements of beliefs/theories to just jump out at you and make you go 'wow, you really believe that?'. All reliable sources are apparently government mouthpieces and cannot be used. He is alone in being the Vanguard of Truth on Wikipedia as far as Canadian politics goes. We all disgust him and/or are harassing him if we disagree. Etc. Etc. Etc. He's a total fanatic it seems to me, a wiki-martyr even, he has no business editing in this topic area at all given his screaming POV on the issue and general lack of self-control or policy clue, and given his recent threats about what he's going to do to these articles once the inevitable happens, this could implode before anyone can even say 'Rfc', let alone file one. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh gee, "what I'm going to do to these articles"?? "Threats"?? give you head a shake; the notion of an AfD on them was previously discussed in CANTALK, no action was taken; but in mid-campaign their presence as political pamphlets implied all kinds of problems for our political milieu - unfair focus in Wikipedia on one party/leader/agenda. All Iv'e suggested, as have others before me, as to what to "do" to these articles, is - other than what should be deleted as rank recycled press release - retitle them, balance them with content from non-Harperite media and sources, and take away their focus on this one politician and his attempt to rebrand our government, indeed our country, in his image; there is no shortage of citable evidence for his information machine's efforts on the web, and how well funded they are, and their pretense of innocence.....Wikipedia, as something that turns up in top googles all the time, was an obvious target. As I said in the AfD, anyone who can't see that is either gullible/innocent or being precocious/disingenuous. And saying that it's ME who has the holier-than-thou attitude when that's a trait of the adminship, and also of the not-NPOV defenders of these articles, with all their condescending tone towards me, which is personal attack at its core, to which I defended myself....well, we all know that bullies blame their victim first and claim innocence/ it's how bullying is done, particularly in so-called "consensus" environments. I'm not the holier-than-thou one here, it's all you claiming to some kind of superiority over me because I'm standing up for the truth that's so rankly arrogant; Im' not the arrogant one here, it's you lot with yoru dimssmivenes... there is such a thing as righteous anger; being patronizing to someone whose beliefs and knowledge you've offended and ignored and been dismissive towards is....just more holier-than-thou-ness. Give your head a shake and have a long look in the mirror. This is not an ANI, it's a witchhunt. The articles are SPAM, and those of us who are familiar with their contents and context who are not harper supporters (though they will claim to be neutral, but in doing so they expressly are not) KNOW THAT THEY ARE. By ganging up on me by way of mass personal attack you degrade the political context/content of which you seem to have no concern; fine, wash your hands of it, it's to Wikipedia's discredit that it is so easily seduced and exploited by those who know how to use your high-handedness against those who want the truth addressed. Oh, I forgot, as waws pointed out to me before recently- "Wikipedia is not about the truth"...yeah, right, no doubt...and calling me a "fanatic", a "wiki-martyr" for speaking my mind in no uncertain terms?? That's a personal attack and demeaning to the core - but apparently you're allowed to do that because you're an admin and I'm only a "fanatic" Good grief, what self-justifying horseshit.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen many of those traits in other editors, Mick. Anyway, I've closed the AfD as no consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Which means the status quo reigns, and political spammers have gotten their way.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:CANADA#Leaving Wikipedia once and for all is also relevant, as would be about 50 other past discussions on WT:CANADA. It is unfortunate that Skookum has such an extreme liberal bias that he sees everything as being the result of a massive Conservative conspiracy, because he is a good editor otherwise. I do believe he is acting in good faith on what he sees as POV issues. But as that AfD shows, the problem is that when he is convinced he is right, there is no way to argue otherwise. All you get are repeated accusations of POV, BIAS, COI, etc, most or all of it without evidence or support. You either support him, or you are part of The Conspiracy™. Resolute 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is available blow, in Silver's post, where he/she complains that Wikipedia Canada members haev a "liberal bias" - which is stock conservative cant.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, reading along with that, and then bam, giant reminder Phaedriel isn't around anymore. That pretty much ruined my day. On the more substantive issue the conduct is worrying because it represents a failure to assume good faith in, or even ascribe individual motivations to, fellow editors which is pretty far down the road to conspiracies. -- ۩ Mask 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What I find extremely sad is that members of the Canada Wikiproject seem to be agreeing with him in that section and are complaining about Wikipedia policies. Something is rather wrong with that Wikiproject. Are they all just as liberally biased? Silverseren^C 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They're agreeing with me because I'm right and yoru suggestion that we are "liberally biased" reveals your own conservative POV, even though you claimed neutrality in the AfD. Pot kettle black and typical conservative "we have reality, the left are all biased" crap. I dont' suppose it's occurred to you that most Canadians are indeed not conservative, small or large C, and that we are in fact liberal; therefore our views should be represented an respected. Or are you telling us what to think, and also how to say it? Typical hypocrisy dressed up in reasonable sounding language supporting an unreasonable position.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is his inability to accept others might disagree for legitimate reasons, not his, or anyone elses personal political beliefs. Keep it on topic please. -- ۩ Mask 14:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that people were agreeing with him and his rants and it was concerning me. But it seems that people are disagreeing now over there, so that's better. Silverseren^C 15:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope Skookum1 will be more conservative (pun intended) with his posts, in future. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Both GoodDay and Resolute have a history of small-c and large-C conservative edits (particularly in the prorogation dispute article, whatever it's called now after the POV-wars about it), and branding me as "liberal" for wanting the truth told and NPOV - real NPOV, not rigged, castrated de-factualization - to be observed, is only just so much more conservative ranting/degradation masquerading as neutrality. As for one of the pro-Harper defenders in the ANI asking that the AfD closed and that I be given a "stern talking to" - when GoodDay has gotten no dress-down for his carping, badgering harassment, or others for their own patronizing attitudes towards me - is only so much more wiki-drivel. The idea that obvious POV can be defended by claiming that the person who's pointing out the POV is biased is illogical and indefensible....and means that the POV-defenders can have their way by saying anyone who wants true NPOV is biased and their opinions/sentiments....in other words "we built this little castle, it's ours, and if you don't like it, you're just anti-us and can be ignored". The bias evinced by the singling out mf me without others being taken to task for negative attack comments is typical of the blinkers-on, heads-down attitude, adn I'm not alone among non-admin editors (and many admins) who find this kind of thing reprehensible, and Wikipedia increasingly pointless. Who needs a "stern talking to" is not me, but the college of admins who should learn to recognize political gamesmanship and information-engineering when they see it, and not find specious reasons to allow it, as is teh end result in this case, and Wikipedia has allowed itself to be manipulated into, as far as Canadian political articles go, a Harperite information-management machine that gets, sadly, top google hits its articles clearly do not deserve or warrant, rigged as they are. The presence of political operatives, masquerading as people who largely do articles on hockey stars or comic books, but who bring out the heavy wiki-lawyering when conservative-soap articles/content are at risk....it's all just so obvious, and I dno't need "stern talking to" by people half my age or less who don't know f-all about the issues/content of the articles in question. I remain disgusted, though sadly not surprised. As for Phaedriel, I believe she left because of sexual harassment issues as well as for the amount of time that Wikipedia takes up out of her life (she also had a new child, and a new marriage); I'm leaving because of the amount of time and energy Wikipedia gobbles up, and the way it is so easily subverted and controlled by professional p.r. people masquerading as legitimate editors and (gasp) admins. Control the means of information and you control history and society, that's obvious enough....there is a stated Tory policy of infiltrating social media and UBC to "correct" it - it's clear to me that's what[s happened here, including the chorus of little doggies going "that skookum1, he sure is a problem". Skookum1 is a problem because he loves the truth, and facts, and doesn't like political dissemblers and wiki-bullies; I have no political allegiance and am a critic of all CAnadian parties; but the other parties aren't playing the same games with Wikipedia as have been going on here (with the except of the even-more-conservative BC Liberals). That two ANIs were used to silence my pointing out rank POV/SPAM in this case, and were threatened in other cases, is just more proof to me of how easily teh lot of you are manipulated. And I'm tired of your pompous and ill-informed behaviour, all of you. Political neophytes backed up by admin status and an ability to play the wikiquette game in order to get away with information-manipulation and effective political and/or corporate p.r. campaigns......this to me is also just another instance of the anti-democratic activities we've all come to assume in CAnada as typical of the Tories (though denied by Tories and their supporters/apologists). yes, I do know more about Canadian politics and have lived through eight prime ministers (make that nine, I forgot about St. Laurent, I'd started teh count from Diefenbaker...make that ten, forgot about Kim Campbell) and seen one hell of a lot of Canadian political commentary/news/manipulation/media gamesmanship; I'm not about to accept a "stern talking to" that I should keep my lip zipped about what is obviously rank political manipulation. It is to Wikipedia's discredit, and the Tories' victory, that I've been gang-f**ked here. good bye and good riddance. Wikipedia's credibility has never been well-founded; now it has, for me, been dynamited. Your little kangaroo court/star-chamber can do with me what it wants, I don't care anymore. You've lost a dedicated and honourable editor by your cupidity on teh one hand, and your tolerance of soft-spoken arrogance on the other.Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(Neutral observer) To me it seems from this long rant that Skookum1 is clearly not willing to edit in a conducive and cooperative manner with other editors and continues to employ the "I'm holier than thou" attitude suggested by others earlier in this section. I suggest that even while he claims he's leaving Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to seek a topic ban if he's unwilling to work with other editors and continues to make disruptive unilateral moves. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I've sided with you on issues in the past, Skookum, and I've opposed you on others. You were always happy when I was with you, but the accusations bias come out every time I disagree with you, as in this case. It's nothing new, and always leads me to wonder... why is it you only ever uncover vast, conservative plots to undermine Wikipedia? Quite odd. All I can suggest is to put the tin foil hat away, and perhaps write a series of articles on the Prime Minsterships of Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, etc. so as to complete a set of articles much like the "Presidency of..." set for Amercan politics. Resolute 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you create Prime Ministership of Paul Martin, Prime Ministership of Joe Clark, Prime Ministership of Alexander Mackenzie etc etc? I won't seek their deletions. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the sordid gamesmanship with this AfD is the diversion of attention from the overly-spam "X Policy of the Harper government" series of articles, which are the other four articles in question, and which constitute even more Harper-bloat than the unnecessary "Premiership"/"Prime Ministership" one ("Prime Ministership", though extant as a term, is STILL not the right term, as it refers to the JOB, i.e. someone getting/holding the job, it does NOT refer to the government/regime as such, nor the period of time in office; it refers to holding the position, it does not refer to Her Majesty's Government during that time of office, but you don't seem to care about that, like so much else you gloss over).....anything that's in the "Prime Ministership" article could just as easily be in the main bio, and if there's no room in that bio it's just not necessary, it is DROSS and FLUFF and a sell-job and more space than this man deserves; but the point about the "X Policy" ones is that they are clearly partisan boilerplate, all the rest of us (including those other Canadians who remain less vocal than me on it, though in agreement with me) recognize them as rank spam and Harper-promotion.....The AfD was closed at the request of one of the pro-Harper, anti-Skookum1 participants with "no consensus" by someone frmo another country with no knowledge of Canadian politics and no concern for same; a tainted decision by its instigation by someone who says the articles aren't POV nor SPAM, when to the rest of us THEY ARE. So how is that fair? it's not, but hell, it's wikipedia and you have to play nice and suck up and pretend nothing is wrong when so very very very much is. "you won't oppose them" big deal; youv'e done nothing to create them, and only stuck your tongue in your cheek (and your finger in my eye) for pointing out the incredibly undue weight given to this one PM, and whose titles are CLEARLY part of the rebranding campaign from "Government of Canada" to "the Harper government" that, by inaction, you clearly support; whether by ignorance or arrogance, the end effect is teh same: teh abuse of Wikipedia for partisan political campaigns and "free advertising"; equivocate all you want that other articles shiould be created; it still doesn't take away that the other parties do not get equivalent space, nor is there a Canadian foreign or enviromental or economic policy article for the same period that fairly addresses the views of most Canadians; not just those who, with a plurality under 40%, enjoy power and are therefore, supposedly, "more notable"......I guess you're not one of the people voting huh, since you're as you claim "apolitical". yeah, right....Skookum1 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Their proper titles, in their current pretty-much-uneditable form, should be Foreign policy of the Harper Tories, Environmental policy of the Harper Tories etc; to distinguish them from e.g. the Mulroney Tories, the Clark Tories, the Diefenbaker Tories; they are pamphlets based around the government's press releases and reactions to those press releases; they are not frameworks on their own of Canadian policy debates...the government is Parliament and Parliament includes the Opposition parties, so Economic policy of the Government of Canada 2006-2011 would be viable as a title; but not anything with the noxious rebranding phrase "Harper goverment". ALL OF YOU HAVE AVOIDED THIS ISSUE like the plague, as also dealing with the obvious fact that a a lot of us regard the articles as POV in tone and SPAM in intent/purpose....denying us that reality is just an insult, and a petty degrading one....that someone aboev somewhere has said they don't understand why other Wikipedia Canada members agree with me is tantamount to saying that Canadians shouldn't be listened to, other than Canadians who support these articles and claim they are NPOV and not-SPAM which they clearly ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And PS - a topic ban?? How's that again?? You mean to say that because I'm anti-Harper (actually anti-Harper propaganda, which is subtly different and not quite the same thing, though I do idslike the man intently as do 60% of Canadians at large), that I should be banned from articles concerning him because I criticize him and his defenders herein? Huh? How's that again? how does that make for NPOV at all. "An editor who maintains that Harper articles are POV should not be allowed to edit articles because he is a critic of the subject?" How's that again? Do you realize what you're saying? The logic is "he can't be allowed to challenge the POV of these articles because he is critical of that POV"???? I really don't think any of you have any mirrors, or any powers of self-reflection; except for those of you who dont' care about your reflection...or whether you have one or not.Skookum1 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Skookum1, you are showing a stunning amount of bad faith right now. Go to bed. Doc talk 09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

TBH, you need a time out, Skookum1. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with a topic ban. Say ... until 3 May at 1200? Just after the election, that is?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, a ban from the talkpages of such articles, as that's where most of the commotion seems to occur. His posts are usually multiple ABF paragraphs. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Best both.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Having woken up to yet another round of "why I'm resigning" posts (about fifteen new walls of text filled with bitter personal attacks on all and sundry), I think a block is in order here to prevent further time being wasted on a situation which is evidently not going to improve by itself. Probably best if it comes from someone who hasn't yet been identified as part of the great conservative conspiracy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#My final resignation. "I can only note that when I went to see what all the outrage is about, in the articles [[Economic policy of the Harper government and Environmental policy of the Harper government, I thought that the talk page would show me the substance of the debate. But, Skookum1, there are no discussions on the talk pages of those articles at all That's surely the place to start before going into a frenzy of outrage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)" An excellent point. +1 for blocking. This has long passed the point of being tiresome. postdlf (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• If Skookum1 is not blocked indefinitely, he should be at least topic banned from Canadian politics articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've suggested, until 1200 on 3 May, when the election is over, the candidates have won or lost, the commentators have commentated, and peace is restored to the world.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support either a block indef until he's willing to edit cooperatively or a topic ban, as I suggested in the previous section, regardless of whether or not Skookum carries out his threat to leave Wikipedia. This is clearly becoming a fairly disruptive nuisance now. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think an indef block for disruption, repeated personal attacks and failure to assume good faith, soapboxing, battlegrounding, etc., etc., etc., would be more appropriate, as a topic ban probably isn't going to contain this effectively. The problem seems to be a general attitude that while he is indispensable to the project and has special knowledge and understanding, everyone who disagrees with him has no good basis for doing so and is instead operating out of a desire to undermine Wikipedia. Many editors may secretly harbor that belief, but he clearly lacks the restraint to keep it from dictating his every word here (and many of them). He doesn't even have the restraint to wait until someone responds to his wall of text before he posts yet another wall of text. So I have little faith in his ability to work here constructively and cooperatively on anything, politics or otherwise, if he's operating under those beliefs and subject to that temperament. He can of course have the block lifted once he acknowledges that he understands the problems with his conduct and explains how he will address those issues in the future. That is, if he decides (again) to undo his retirement, and if he doesn't, then we'll just have indef blocked an inactive account. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For an editor who's "resigned" he certainly is verbose [54] [55]. At this point he should be asked either to drop the stick and get back to editing or actually retire. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...and another round of personal attacks at those diffs. Will someone please block him already and end this? postdlf (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Skookum for 3 weeks... Until a few days after the election. Feel free to change it without consulting me. Grandmasterka 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The block is probably a good idea at this point. Skookum is a good editor on British Columbia topics, and it would suck to lose those contributions. But his passion level for politics has bordered on zealotry for a while, and seemingly gone over the deep end lately. The Harper articles are not the first time he's done this, as he's pulled the same arguments with Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician) in the past. The two things these two politicians have in common is that they are both right wing, and Skookum absolutely hates both of them. So much so that since I didn't side with him on this ANI report, I've become "an obvious political operative", very cleverly hiding my paid loyalties by editing hockey articles almost exclusively. Sneaky me! The sad part of Skookum's attitude is that he may well be right in the need to cleanup, prune or merge those Harper artcles. I wouldn't know, as I'm a terrible operative and never bothered reading or editing them. But after several years of interacting with him, I have very grave doubts that Skookum is capable of editing these political articles without resorting to the bad faith accusations, personal attacks, battleground mentality and inability to accept countering opinions that he has consistently demonstrated when it comes to these types of debates. He can be a constructive editor in this area, but he absolutely has to tone down his own level of rhetoric. Resolute 19:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment Ummmmm ... not really interested in getting into the meat of this debate, but shouldn't a (block) notice be posted to his talk with the "unblock" links and instructions? — Ched :  ?  20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted links, but not the templates. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's so frustrating to see a good content editor get himself blocked in this way. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What choice did he give us? After the election, perhaps he will be more reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good block. Good work all - This was getting increasingly disruptive. Outback the koala (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

216.189.209.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a threat to publish "detailed personal descriptions" of users who he called "jewish WikipediaNazis" [56]. User has made a number of accusations against groups of editors. See: [57][58]GabrielF (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. But there was no threat of "outing", maybe you just are paranoid? I would think that the rest of the statements are also not accurate. Maybe you could indicate exactly which editors you are referring to? Don't I have a right to defend myself? What I indicated is that I am writing an article about this topic and how Wikipedia does not allow dissent in opinions. I did not believe it, but I now see it is very true. Attacks "left and right" and the way you guys band together does not make you look good. Not very respectful, guys. If you think it is OK to call someone a Nazi, then I can use the same technique. I figured that the last thing NaZionists like is to be called out for who they are and what they stand for. PermaBan me? Please.216.189.209.130 (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making good on this threat:[59] Or could be an impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been granted a 3 month vacation from Wikipedia upon the request above. –MuZemike 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Hrafn has reverted reliable information with referenced sources 3 times within the past 24 hours, the last one with additional comment of ridicule. It is apparent that the sources cited in footnote were not even read. I have written a "first warning" on the User's Talk page. I will go back and add the subst:ANI-notice to it. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ark of the Covenant#Sources on 'Heaven' section & Talk:Ark of the Covenant#Implication of Revelation passage for details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the section heading here. Now stop edit-warring and discuss it on the talkpage, the pair of you. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 08:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Done & done, on my part (have not reverted either of Michael Paul Heart's last two reverts, and have posted repeatedly, unanswered, on talk). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(I would further note that Michael Paul Heart is continuing to accuse me of vandalism & continuing to fail to even attempt to address the issues I have raised with his sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC) )

Yes, it seems Michael does not understand the mandatory requirements of WP:RS and WP:V and is repeatedly using poor sources. Since he already has over 1300 edits there is really no excuse for this kind of behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On 8 March, I blocked Mjs2010 for incompetence, copyright violation, and personal attacks. Sandstein declined and unblock request later that day. On 13 March, the account B.Davis2003 was created, and edited until 15 April, when MuZemike blocked it as a confirmed sockpuppet of Mjs2010 (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjs2010) Later that day, JamesBWatson declined an unblock request. Today there was another unblock request, that at best, only superficially addressed the reasons for the original block, and failed to discuss at all the copyright violations. Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) granted this unblock request without consulting any of the four previously involved admins, and when asked about this unblock, and asked to reverse his unblock for discussion, has declined. I'd like to see this unblock reviewed by other parties. Courcelles 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that I had declined an earlier unblock request, I do see that there is an arguable case for unblocking. However, I do not see that there is a case for unilateral unblocking without consultation or discussion. In fact I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed. There is no way that this unblock could be seen as clear cut and uncontroversial, and for one admin to take unilateral action against the clear consensus of several other admins without even an attempt to discuss it was not appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If any of this person's accounts were to be unblocked it would only be the original one: Mjs2010. That said, the English composition and comprehension skills of the editor are not at encyclopedia level. There is no compelling reason to bring this editor back after socking. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Courcelles for notifying me of this (though I would add to his or her chronology of events that I also declined an unblock request from this editor yesterday, explaining the conditions they needed to meet to be unblocked). As I stated on my talk page, when reviewing this editor's actions (in both accounts) I came to the view that the problems with their editing were being driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. As they had nominated the account they wished to use and given a reasonably detailed commitment to stick to the rules I couldn't see any grounds to continue the block. When agreeing to the unblock I told the editor that they would probably be re-blocked without warning if they broke their commitment, however, and watchlisted their talk page so that I could respond to any further complaints the editor received. As such, I think that the unblock is justified on the grounds that the editor deserves a final chance, though I wouldn't be at all bothered if other admins come to a different conclusion. I'm also happy to take a trout for not discussing this with Courcelles first as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. Please admin, if you could tell me what would be preferred, and If you could please, take time look at my contributes to wikipedia on my new account, and know that I have supplied sources and remained calm in edit wars. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 (talk · contribs) continues to evade his block using a variety of IP addresses - currently 43 have been discovered and tagged, though not all of them have been blocked, and no doubt he has many more. This guy is a long-term nuisance, adding false info to BLPs, refusing to engage in dialogue etc. and was brought to ANI many times before getting indeffed. This is my third time requesting a rangeblock - once at SPI in January, and here at ANI in March - both were ignored. Can something be finally done about this please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GiantSnowman proposal is certainly fully supported by most footy project members, fed up of loosing time searching for his socks and fixing his wrong edits (houndereds, if not tousands). Range block, please. FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support GiantSnowman's proposal also. JonBroxton (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your talking about almost 13k addresses just from the range already used, that would be a pretty big block. And if the 86 and 91 IPs are really the same person, the range block wouldn't even stop them. Monty₈₄₅ 20:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the ramifications of a range block; however, this editor is a recurring problem, and we over at WP:FOOTY have wasted, and no doubt will continue to waste, plenty of valuable time reverting this guy's "contributions." GiantSnowman 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure, can you confirm that the likely collateral damage from such a range block would be unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact to innocent editors? That's the major sticking point here, and why it wasn't enacted a long time ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would a rangeblock affect registered users as well, or just IPs? GiantSnowman 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

79.213.64.0/18 has been blocked 3 months. As far as I can see, there has been only one other registered account on that range within the past month alone, and it's only AO/ACB. –MuZemike 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We're going about this the wrong way. Simply community ban this sockmaster, allowing anyone to revert/block/nuke the socks on sight. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would support a community ban. It's apparent that Zombie433 has zero intent to cease his disruption and his evasion of the block, and Monty845 is correct; if those other IPs are really Zombie433, then it's apparent that a rangeblock would be an incredibly minor hurdle for him. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 23:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban - good suggestion, avoids issues associated with rangeblock. GiantSnowman 00:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If you now favor a community ban over a rangeblock, then perhaps the header could be changed to something like "Rangeblock Community ban for Zombie433"? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• The community may still decide on a rangeblock, who knows, so I have removed all mention of possible sanctions in the title. Hope it's better now, if not feel free to change it. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban, oppose rangeblock for the reasons given above. Egg Centric 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since a consensus is desired as whether or not to rangeblock, I have unblocked 79.213.64.0/18 pending the outcome. –MuZemike 08:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban and rangeblock. This is a long-term troublemaker on football articles. Having seen the list of suspected sockpuppets, I agree that a three-month anonblock of 79.213.64.0/18, as proposed by MuZemike, is sensible. Using the 'rangecontribs' tool I looked at the anons active on this /18 range lately, and it looks to be all this guy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it isn't just about current editors - you don't know who else will turn up on that IP range in the next few months. It may be the next super editor is signing up for that ISP now and I don't think it's appropriate to put them off unnecessarily. Of course the rangeblock could be done each time this guy vandalises, for 24 hours or something, and a ban would help with that... Egg Centric 16:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban and rangeblock. If MuZemike says no constructive editors are using any IPs in that range, that's good enough for me. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • BUT THEY MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE. And the block will have little effect anyway. Egg Centric 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I read what you said the first time, but I didn't find it persuasive. By your logic, no rangeblocks would be done, ever, for any duration, no matter how bad the disruption. Sometimes rangeblocks are appropriate, and I believe this is one of those times. A new, innocent editor caught in a rangeblock is a bad thing, which is why I wouldn't support one if a checkuser wasn't recommending it. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban and rangeblock Zombie is/was one the most productive editors on en.wikipedia. Rangeblocks are not good, but I see no other options IMHO. Maybe it won't stop him, but we can at least try. Cattivi (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban, oppose rangeblock Lets try the community ban first, and only if it is still a problem should we go the rangeblock route. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban and rangeblock, bearing in mind the long-term disruption despite the community's previous efforts to stop it. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban and rangeblock, a ban gives us more leeway to get rid of him, puts him on the list of banned users (so other users know to look out for him), and will let users be more aggressive in stopping his nonsense. Although the ban won't instantly do anything in terms of stopping him entirely- the rangeblock should. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And discussion is starting to dry up. Do we have a consensus to enact the ban, the rangeblock, both, or neither? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like a ban gets our support, but the rangeblock doesn't. Is that a fair summary? GiantSnowman 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a consensus for both, actually (though the closing admin may think differently). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 16:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

True, more editors support the rangeblock than oppose it, but it's not a !vote, and I think the issues of 'collateral damage' needs to be taken into consideration. GiantSnowman 16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this category something that needs deleting? Bielle (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) For some reason, the title doesn't print. It said Category:Fucktards. Bielle (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to have already gone... GiantSnowman 03:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To link to a category or image without placing the page in the category or displaying the image, place a colon in between the brackets and the link target. So [[Category:Foobar]] would become [[:Category:Foobar]] —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

""...without placing the page in the category...". That is assuming that placing this page in this category was unintentional. Perhaps it was, but if so then perhaps an example of what is called a serendipitous error... Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that Bielle deliberately placed WP:ANI in Category:Fucktards? Cos that's what it seems like to me, and I'd suggest you assume good faith. GiantSnowman 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Herostratus was being facetious. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean Freudian slip. 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tijfo098 (talk • contribs)

I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame... I can think of several articles that should be tagged with this category. personal attacks redacted ... I have more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that this discussion is occurring during the Canadian election, I can think of a whole lot of articles that could be tagged with this category - and before a wall of text spontaneously arises here, I state that my suggestions would encompass the entire political spectrum. --NellieBly (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, let's leave out personal attacks on public figures, eh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

94.209.120.112 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Madallo Sesay

See the comments by the IP in this AfD, which include personal attacks, accusations of racism, and mentions of law suits. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Did this really need to go stright to ANI? I think it's fair to suggest that an IP whose sole contribution to the project is threatening a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the African-American community is not something we need particularly concern ourselves with. You've already reverted the edit in question. Just warn the user and move on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

75.47.149.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.47.150.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have to report new editing by NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), this time on Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2, as 66.66.27.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Diffs are [64] and [65]. I thought that this should be brought to the community's attention. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the edits was removal of [alleged] personal information about the banned editor. I have no objection about the removal of that and request oversight to delete that PI from the record. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --Following Wikipedia policy in WP:Harassment: added the word "alleged," since this refers to an "attempted outing." --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added the word "alleged" in the above. This is an "attempted outing" and should be treated as such, according to WP:Harassment. According to the policy, the user who posted the (deleted) information needs to be blocked (as well as warned not to do such a thing again); this is a serious offense. Oversight requests are not done here. One of these editors who does use email with Wikipedia (or IRC) needs to make an explicit written request to remove the alleged personal information from the permanent record. Perhaps the person who posted it can make the request; perhaps that would prevent being blocked. (cont.)

Moreover, the ongoing harassment of anonymous IP users and the attempt to block all anonymous IP users from editing articles relating to Harold Pinter, such as Harold Pinter bibliography and Antonia Fraser, are violations of Wikipedia's posted policy to current semi-protection and protection. (See linked policies accessed via the lock icons.) Claims of "vandalism" in Jezhotwells' various editing summaries in Harold Pinter are false and not supported by actual evidence. Corrections of typographical and factual errors are not vandalism (even blocked users may make such corrections, according to "ignore all rules"). These articles should not be semi-protected. Errors that these editors are simply unable to perceive (some recently introduced by Jezhotwells) still need correction. Sometimes it is only users who, due to privacy concerns, prefer to edit anonymously, who might be knowledgeable enough about subjects of articles to correct such errors. Such users should not be harassed. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

[E.g., in the infobox for Antonia Fraser, someone insists on adding "Lady"; but that is not Wikipedia policy for names in infoboxes. Antonia's full title and full name appears in the lead paragraph; the title of the article is, however, Antonia Fraser, and the infobox should match that. (Though she was recently made a "Dame," her title of "Lady" still takes precedent, and she is not addressed as "Dame," but as "Lady." (She has another honorary title as well, which someone deleted erroneously.) Similarly, when someone changed Bibliography for Harold Pinter to Harold Pinter bibliography, that person and subsequent editors failed to change the beginning of the lead paragraph (bold font) to match. It is Wikipedia style to have the bold font in the lead paragraph to be the same as the title of the article. But the semi-protection status that Jezhotwells has had administrators place on these articles (using false claims of "vandalism" by anonymous IP users) is preventing anonymous IP users from correcting these (often minor) kinds of typographical problems and thus improving the articles. (It is not Jezhotwells' prerogative to decide who is editing "in good faith" and who is not doing so; the policy is WP:AGF; frequently, his editing summaries label some editors' edits as "good faith" and others as not, when the edits actually have been made "in good faith." The false claims of "vandalism" also have prevented correction of factual errors of content or corrections of errors made in quotations from sources. One editor's or a small group of editors' biases should not govern the content and format of these articles. They are supposed to be open a larger consensus of Wikipedia editors. See the earlier "peer review." Needed corrections to the Harold Pinter bibliography that could be made by anonymous IP users (for errors not perceived by Jezhotwells et al.) are also blocked by its current semi-protected lock. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)]

Quack. If this isn't NYScholar then the IP in question has a bright future as an impressionist. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NYScholar, here is the answer to all of the problems you describe: Stop editing through your ban. If you would do that, there would be no need to semiprotect any of these articles and IPs would be able to make any necessary typo fixes. Furthermore if your only edits to these article were legitimate typo fixes, it's unlikely that anyone would be able to recognize the edits as yours and no eyebrows would be raised over them. Should you wish to ever edit Wikipedia legitimately again, your first step is to stop violating your ban. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This IP is still editing the archives and needs to be blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP is now pestering my on my talk page, threatening me with blocks if I revert his/her disruption of an archived page. Will an administrator PLEASE do something about this? On a related note, could someone who knows policy please weigh in on whether there's any merit to his/her claims of outing? If any legitimate editor deletes the info I'll leave it at that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. These "NYScholar is back" threads are getting tiresome. It's time to face the facts that this user isn't going away, and enjoys all the attention. The SP seems to be working so let's keep doing that, but as far as reporting goes,it should be done on a less visible page, such as a long-term abuse noticeboard. The irony is, this is a user who has a serious anti-social behaviour/conduct disorder, yet engages in attention-seeking behavior. Let's not feed into his illness. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

When a blatantly obvious sock appears, they can simply be posted as such at WP:AIV and hopefully they will be put on ice with minimal attendant fanfare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will report at AIV in future. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And if they decline to block, take it to an admin more closely involved in the case... by e-mail instead of on-wiki, if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dilek2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently Dilek2 has been having some problems with articles, talk pages and RFCs about the Ottoman Dynasty. He claims to have information about the family and constantly links to a Ottoman Family website. I did some digging, which wasn't tough, and found a pretty good pattern of this user removing parts of articles he clearly doesn't like: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Then there are examples of him removing edits to talk pages: 1, 2, 3. Then there is the one NPA I found. I only dug to March 27, but there are probably more. This is a pattern of vandalism, disruptive editing and a major case of WP:OWN. His talk page edits show that clearly.

I am really hoping this is just a case of WP:COMPETENCE, but in my gut it feels like something worse. I am hoping that is just indigestion though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I declined the initial AIV report since I did not see the edit presented as obvious vandalism, but upon Neutralhomers expanded rationale on my talkpage I suggested that there were certainly some issues relating to ownership and competence - though I am now more inclined toward WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT instead of the latter. It is obvious that the editor does not have English as a first language, but that does not mean that they are not trying to shape the article concerned into one they would prefer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think Dilek2 will be responding to this thread. To my notification, I got this response. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that 2011 Chinese protests has been locked down, the frantic activity seems to have spilled over to China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents‎. Two new arrivals with few other edits to their credit seem to be attempting to use WP as the revolution soapbox. I haven't had time to look at precisely what's going on there, but I think it includes tag-teaming, and needs to be stopped. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For background details on this incident, refer to 2011 Chinese protests and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• The two new users [sic] with an obvious (to me, at any rate) agenda march in and start edit warring and inserting overt bias implying there is a revolution in china. One of them has been repeatedly warned, and taken to AN3. The article gets locked down; partisan edit warring happens again in the only other article they are involved with. Whilst it is important not to WP:BITE, these newbies should have the book thrown at them, as they seem to be continually and flagrantly flouting our content policies and especially our behavioural guidelines. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Zhangjiandong has been confirmed to be a WP:SOCK of User:Waikiki lwt, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong. This is no longer tag-team EW-ing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that the following history-merge moves be performed:

• Talk:Fourth Battle of Brega –> Talk:Battle of Brega-Ajdabiya road
• Talk:Battle of Az Zintan and Talk:Battle of Gharyan –> Talk:2011 Fighting in the Nafusa Mountains (current title, move request being discussed)
• Talk:Székelys –> Talk:Székely Fixed by User:Prodego. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The first two are necessitated by article restructuring of battles in the 2011 Libyan civil war. The third one is a product of a disruptive cut-and-paste move by the now-banned User:Iaaasi, which I have requested be fixed on multiple occasions, only to be ignored (to my great annoyance). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be wanting Wikipedia:Requested moves, although I do note that that page is backlogged currently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, these are not RMs. See WP:HISTMERGE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah... How fortunate I do not exercise my meagre wits in regard to either of those matters! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BogdaNz has been edit-warring on a number of pages, the most recent on German battleship Tirpitz. He was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for edit-warring on the article, and has resumed the disruptive behavior immediately after the block expired (see here and here. I and three other editors (including another administrator) have attempted to discuss this with the editor, who has told me that he "would not allow you to mode this page like you want". He has caused problems elsewhere (see here. I gave him yet another warning to stop edit-warring over the issue, and he followed 12 minutes later with another revert (the second diff above). If BogdaNz doesn't want to follow the rules, he should not have access to the edit button right now. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked for edit warring. --John (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the Reviewer right? It looks like a straight content disagreement to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see he's done it twice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, he needs to put in an explanation as to why he's reverting the changes. Corvus cornix_talk 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the failure to use a descriptive edit summary is the bigger issue. Personally I think it would have been best practice to accept it for not meeting a pending changes rejection criteria, and then undo citing whatever the reason was for undoing it. But accepting it only to remove it in the next edit is really just a symbolic gesture, and I think lots of people don't do it. Still I agree the edit summary is a problem, just saying "no" is really unhelpful. Monty₈₄₅ 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I'll leave a message reminding him to explain his reason in the edit summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the first time. I tried discussing this edit with Rcsprinter123.--BelovedFreak 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that this editor's words yesterday were hollow and that mention of a two week break were probably an attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. This user has proved him/herself incompetent in a number of ways, has largely ignored advice, and wreaks havoc across Wikipedia. I think a short ban, perhaps a month or so, is in order. Then, if the user agrees to some mentoring he/she could be let back on with reviewer privilege removed and with a topic ban on any sort of reviewing. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this editor is simply too young to understand the advice he's been given. A child doesn't always understand why what he's done is wrong. A child's greatest fear isn't causing harm, it's being criticized. A child's repentance is directed only at stopping the scolding, because to a child that is the real issue: someone getting angry at him is FAR more serious to him than any harm he could cause, because at that age the only thing he knows is real is himself.

This isn't meant to be a criticism of the editor; this is absolutely normal behaviour for someone his age, and we might be expecting too much of [redacted] by expecting him to understand that following the rules isn't about avoiding criticism - it's about doing the right thing. But we do have to make it clear to him that apologizing and promising not to do it again is not enough. He must actually prove to us, by following the rules, that he understands that the encyclopedia is real and that his actions should be directed towards improving it, not avoiding criticism. --NellieBly (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011

WP is not a crèche. When mentoring begins to blur into day care, it's time to bite the bullet, indef him, and get on with the job in hand.Keristrasza (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If his use of the reviewer status is a problem, we should be starting by asking why he has reviewer status. As far as "wreaks havoc" is concerned, I think that might be something of an exaggeration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Any wikipedian who needs constant supervision by others is likely to be a detriment to the encyclopædia, because it consumes resources which could be put into improving other articles. (The same goes for the drama-mongers; the drama is harmful in that it consumes lots of other wikipedians' time & effort). That may not, in itself, always justify a block, or ban, or some other countermeasure; but it's certainly worth considering if the problem persists despite a warning. bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Rcsprinter's use of the GA icon and ITN icon as topicons on his userpage is misleading as it suggests he's had two GAs and four ITN credits. Neither of the articles are GAs and one of the linked ITN buttons is to the Main Page itself. Does anyone else feel this is disruptive to other users who may be trying to judge this user's past contributions? Can/Should an admin remove the false topicons? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the images he's using are "Symbol support vote" and "Gnome globe current event" then I think interpreting it as misleading is perhaps a little over-eager. Current events are indeed to be found on the Main Page; perhaps he thinks that Hollands Pies are involved in a current event too? I think any user wishing to judge his past contributions would pick up the idea quickly enough when hovering over the icon and seeing "Main Page" appear, that they would not be "disrupted". It doesn't need an administrator to edit it, but a more useful alternative might be for someone to politely explain what these icons are customarily used to indicate on a userpage, and ask him to make some changes. I'd never seen "Gnome globe current event" used on a userpage to indicate someone having successful ITN submissions, so it's a new one to me too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Underage editors have their age/birthdate removed for their protection all the time, and have for years. If you want to debate that practice, either CHILDPROTECT or WP:VPP is the correct venue, not ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are comments about the subjects age being redacted and memory holed? The subject's self-expressed age has quite a bearing on the matter in hand, how to assess their actions, and any sanctions which may be applied. Keristrasza (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC) This is becoming farcical. If the user in question is now considered so young that the very mention of their age is memory holed, we need to indef. The subject can be revisited in a few years. Keristrasza (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC) His apparent exact date of birth was suppressed (not "memory holed") as is usual practise for editors who are minors. I don't think it's a problem mentioning that he's young - not that it isn't obvious anyway. AD 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Suppressed" isn't memory holing? Perhaps you should read WP's own definition of memory holing: "A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records, such as from a web site or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened." Check the history. Memory holed. Keristrasza (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Inconvenient or embarrassing? No, not at all. We can see the edits were there, we just can't see what they say, and for good reason too. AD 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC) What exactly is this "good reason"? Keristrasza (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I already explained below. Do you honestly think it's a brilliant idea for a child to put their personal info where anybody can see it? Particularly their age, which draws attention to the fact they are a child? I'm not going to spell out the reason, but he's making himself a target by advertising his age. AD 00:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Policy please, not hand wringing. Keristrasza (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You've already been told; now please back off. I honestly don't see anything productive coming from this wikilawyering. AD 00:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC) More bullshit. "...simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer." Moreover, "an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se" and "it is an offense towards a fellow Wikipedian." Your failure to find a policy, your descent into ad hom attacks, are more of an affront to the regular working of WP than the oversighting of a child's age which may impact upon the community's actions to deal with their infantile disruptions and delusions of adulthood/maturity. So back off. Keristrasza (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You are the one who is dragging this out and making this an issue, nobody else. You are the one who needs to back off and find something more productive to do, rather than make exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims about memory holes and "ad hom attacks". This is a young child who foolishly posted their age on their userpage, and now it has been appropriately removed (as it is routinely done) you are, for reason unknown, hectoring at editors demanding to know which policy applied to remove it. The straight answer: WP:IAR. There's your policy. Please understand though not every action requires a policy to back it up, and in this case common sense ought to prevail. AD 00:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC) It is an issue. If a user is considered so infantile that the very mention of their age alerts the Thought Police, then that needs to be a part of the decision making process regarding what, if any, sanctions are applied. Common sense dictates that children who are so young that the very mention of their age spooks the faint-of-heart should be indef'd. While numbers may have been memory-holed, my apparently pointless comments here will hopefully draw attention to this necessity. Keristrasza (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) And I would add, I find your comment that becoming involved in process is somehow "unproductive" derogatory and offensive. If you have an issue with my contributions, raise it at Rfc or jog on, sunshine. Keristrasza (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I find your tone offensive ("jog on, sunshine", "more bullshit") but I'm not complaining. Your "involvement" here has done nothing whatsoever to improve the situation so I can't see how my comment was inaccurate. AD 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Tone? Your Wikipedia comes with voice mode? Bullshit? "...commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy" ... Which is entirely accurate. There has been no accusation that any editor has attempted to "pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, [or] advocate[d] inappropriate adult–child relationships, or... identif[ied] themselves as pedophiles." And yet a policy requiring those actions has been quoted and applied. "Jog on, sunshine" - a perfectly polite phrase, in common usage in my part of the country. What exactly do you think it means? And finally, you, you alone, are not the arbiter of what comments do or do not improve a situation. You, it would seem, have delusions of grandeur if you believe that you are the final word in community discussions. I know I didn't vote for you - did you come as part of a coalition or something? Keristrasza (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I think the child protection policy trumps the apparent overwhelming eagerness that "especially children" should not have their mistakes tolerated. So removing information about the user's age is entirely appropriate. In fact, users should not have been mentioning the user's age here when it had already been suppressed from the user's userpage. "You can't say your own age on your own userpage, but we the grown-ups are going to mention your age repeatedly at AN/I where lots of trolls and other troublemakers will see it, and you can't do anything about it. Because we know better." Nice one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Bullshit. WP:CHILDPROTECT specifically addresses "[e]ditors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles." Are you saying that any of the above falls within that remit? If so, diffs please! I suspect you are talking out of place, there are no diffs supporting your accusation. My daughter is six, and she would give this site a good run for its money on its Club Penguin coverage. Her vocab would be fine, her spelling would equal or surpass that of our many contributors for whom English is a second language, but ... she is simply too fucking young. This is a very important aspect of the user Rcsprinter123's behaviour. As for "already been suppressed from the user's userpage" - where has that been pointed out above? It isn't my job to go watching the user page of every user on WP. Again, how does WP:CHILDPROTECT apply here? Unless it is to support my stance that WP:NOTACRECHE? 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Sigh, the point is not to draw attention to the fact it's a child. Unfortunately, as Demiurge100 explains, some people are just too ignorant of the real problems that could and do occur on the internet. AD 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You seem to be asking me to back up an accusation that I haven't made, which is... interesting to say the least. Your "vocab" seems to have gone downhill at the same time, which is also interesting. You say just above that this has become "farcical" - well, you're right there, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Cease the ad hom and address the policy question. Keristrasza (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Child protection. It authorizes oversight, revdel, and other measures if adult editors act inapporpriately toward minor editors. Now, the only way that our minor editors can be targeted by creepy motherfuckers pedophiles and the like is by identifying themselves as minors. Routinely, when a minor posts specific identifying information (true name, address, precise birthdate, even the occasional social security number) (!), we revdel and oversight the edits. This protects the editor from inadvertantly revealing information that should remain undisclosed. If I know someone's date of birth, and know that they live in a certain city, I can make a pretty good guess as to where they go to school, and from that where they live. We've had adult editors outed in such fashion. This is what we generally refer to as a bad thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I'm assuming you don't advocate waiting for a minor editor to be accosted by a pedophile before taking some simple measures to prevent it? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC) "...if adult editors act inapporpriately toward minor editors." Has any editor done this? Do you have evidence of this? Look, this backs up what I started out by saying: when WP blurs into day care, then a simple indef can be the only solution. And where will we now define "inappropriate" with this user? Is it kid glove and cotton wool from now on, because they're basically one step up from an infant? As for your comment, Ultraexactzz, are you accusing me of something? Something "creepy"? Put up or shut up. Keristrasza (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I should add, it is not now and it never has been policy to make allowances for the age of users. If that were the case, there would be zero school blocks. My aim here is not to "out" the specific numbers of this user's age, but to draw the attention of the community to the matter when deciding what, if any, sanctions should be applied. Misguided appeals to the protection of minors from paedophiles should not detract from that. Keristrasza (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC) (outdent) The child protection policy does, and always has, covered protection of personally identifiable information exposed by underage Wikipedians. This is the policy. Please accept that, Keristrasza. We do not "make allowances for the age of contributors" in handling behavioral issues they may have, other than AGF and patience being appropriately tuned for the individual. There's nothing wrong with a newer user not knowing what the policy is and being confused or objecting to discovering a policy you personally disagree with. With that said - this is the policy, and ANI is not the right venue to change it per se, should you object to it and seek a different policy. We have provided the information you asked about; nobody's accusing you of anything improper, and there's not much more to discuss here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Good grief, man - the policy says NOTHING OF THE SORT! Read it! It does not mention "personally identifiable information exposed by underage Wikipedians" or even come close to that! Keristrasza (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You cannot successfully navigate Wikipedia as if policy is a programming language, and only rules explicitly written down are applicable. We have always (last 5 years when I have been here, at least) removed this type of information. The written CHILDPROTECT policy came along later, and was written inclusive of the existing protective practice. You are correct that there is not an explicit written down "You can" or "You shall" redact this information. Nevertheless - that's what the policy is. Again - There's nothing wrong with you not having previously known that. But we're telling you now. If you object to it you can argue that it should be changed, but it is as it is now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC) What you're saying is that policies are uneccessary because any other ruling that anyone decides to add - unwritten, undiscussed, without consensus - must be assumed to exist "between the lines" in any existing policy. That makes a mockery of the whole system. Keristrasza (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. - 76.244.155.165 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC) No. What I'm saying is that some Wikipedia policy is unwritten or based on widely scattered precedent and non-policy-formalized consensus. Our system includes as one of its five core values ignore all rules and we explicitly reject overly legalistic frameworks for interpreting how to run the encyclopedia. Again - you can't successfully participate in the project if you try and use the written policy as a programming language. You have to understand that there are informal policies and many many scattered precedents, and learn to live with that. It would be wrong to hold people accountable for policy they don't know about, but we're telling you about it now. The various policies now partly codified by the child protection policy (and partly still informal) were publicly announced years ago and the subject of a months-long, hundreds-of-participants open policy discussion, which ended with overwhelming (80% plus) support for the unwritten policy. That's not unanimous, but it is consensus, and it is valid even though we did not codify a written policy from that discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Oh god, it's happening just as I said it would. Major misapplication of the incredibly ill-defined WP:CHILDPROTECT policy. Though I guess it's not a misapplication when you have a policy that is so broad as to be able to be applied to anything you want if you have some imagination. SilverserenC 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The village pump policy page is over thataway. The policy hasn't changed in any significant way in at least 5 years. I understand that there's a persistent minority of editors who disagree with it, but that's what it is by both community and administrator community and arbcom and Jimmy consensuses and concurrences. It does not seem misapplied here. You are welcome to start another round of policy discussions on changing it if need be, in the appropriate place... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Where exactly in the policy you are quoting does it mention the actions you are advocating? If the policy hasn't changed in the last 5 years, why are you apparently not familiar with its wording? Keristrasza (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The WP:CHILDPROTECT policy has been in place for only a single year, if you check the history. It was created by the Foundation after the rather embarrassing events of a year ago, if you remember. There was never any vote, the community was never consulted, it was never proposed to be put as a policy, as every other policy was. No, it was just put into place by the Foundation and no amount of disagreement swayed them. It is not a policy to protect children, it is a policy to protect the Foundation from getting in trouble if something does happen with a child, since they will be able to point to the policy and say that they did everything they could, which was really nothing at all. There is a reason why the government has Sex offender registration and not the "Sex offenders should be quiet and not say you're a sex offender, because then you'll be arrested, but that just means that you should do stuff in secret." SilverserenC 02:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Prior to a year ago, we had a long, long, LONG community discussion about it in which 80% of users participating supported the then-unwritten / informal policy, about 15% objected to the secrecy, and about 5% objected to having the policy at all. Many hundreds of people commented during the discussion lifecycle. That we did not proceed to a written policy does not mean we didn't have a community discussion, nor that we don't have community consensus. We could at any point have a new discussion, potentially a new consensus, potentially another policy. So far, nobody has bothered to stand up and drive forwards yet another policy initiative. Lack of written outcome does not invalidate the consensus. We're in a fuzzy-grey land here, but we're close to white, not somewhere lost in the middle. We are explicitly by our own pillars ( WP:IAR ) allowed to remain fuzzy and continue to function, so even if you're legalistic this is plenty covered by precedent and policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC) How am I legalistic? I want a policy that will actually protect children on Wikipedia. If such a policy would give a possibility of us making a mistake and the Foundation getting in trouble, who cares? Personally, I think the safety of children is more important than the Foundation's safety against legal action. And can you please link me to this huge community discussion? I asked multiple times before back when the policy was created for an example of this community consensus and nothing was ever given beyond Arbcom members saying "This is the way the Foundation will do it, end of story." SilverserenC 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) We did develop a community consensus after it was written down: [72], and there had been prior consensuses. The linked one closed 78-8 in favor of the as-written policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) ...okay, I think you need to rub your eyes and look closer. It is 8-8. There is no 78 there, there is someone using a struck out 7 in order to make it 8, likely because someone else had just voted. SilverserenC 03:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Ahh.... I see. I sit corrected. There was a larger consensus somewhere in one of these debates, but I don't have a link convenient. I thought I saw 78 there and assumed that was what I was looking for. My mistake, apologies. I or someone owe you the other one if we can find it. 8-( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You could've just looked and seen that there was no way 78 people responded in that discussion. :P And I am doubtful that the discussion you're thinking of exists, since it has never been shown to me after multiple askings for such a link to Arbcom and Foundation members. And if they can't find such a discussion, who can? SilverserenC 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC) GWH: (excuse shorthand) If you believed that to be the case ten minutes ago why did you quote a policy at me, here and on my talk page, that mentions absolutley none of the above and explicitly, specifically is aimed at "inappropriate adult–child relationships" and "pedophiles"? Why quote WP:CHILDPROTECT when - in truth - it has no bearing on this case at all? Why do people keep saying policy this, policy that when there is NO POLICY? The user in question is, according to your reasoning, too young to be here on wikipedia due to potential - not actual - risk. Indef. No contest. Keristrasza (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC) There is nothing in our policy - written or not - banning young / underage participants. There is policy - written - with some specific protections. There is policy - precedent, unwritten, but much discussed and long time consensus approved - that includes deletion of ages and other personal identifying information. Nobody other than you are asserting anyone is "too young" to participate here. Redaction of revealed personal information is not the same as too young to participate. They are only vaguely related in any sense. We have no policy or precedent on minimum age. You cannot infer that we have or should have such a policy from our having a policy that we'll remove personally identifiable information and/or ages of underage participants. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) In that last sentence, perhaps "cannot" should be "should not" - I believe that the inferrence I am saying not to make may be in fact what was made and is causing the confusion. I don't want to imply on any level that we forbid the mistake that seems to have been made in ignorance. Being confused about Wikipedia policy is, alas, one of our favorite hobbies, right after political arguments and pin the tail on the newbie... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not my intention to reopen this, but those editors previously involved in the above discussion may also wish to see WP:CHILD. It's only an essay, but it does describe how personal information is often handled. —DoRD (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. If we have a long-standing and accepted convention and it isn't reflected in a policy page, the policy page needs updated. End of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Messing about with an editor's Talk page archive
• Another badly explained non-vandalism pending changes rejection

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

After he edit-warred on Template:Meat to reinstate an anti-policy color change using inline style attributes after having been told not to do so, with this talk page comment, I have blocked him for a week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good move. And what about the reviewer privilege. Are you going to revoke that? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Would make sense to revoke it. Thus far the use of reviewer hasn't caused any big problems, but who knows, a BLP could be next... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I support removal of Reviewer right, but I don't want to do it myself as I haven't been an admin for long and I don't feel I should make such a decision - I'd prefer to leave it to someone else -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed. This is clear-cut: he's using it as a generic revert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support both block and removal of reviewer right. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I think we should make it clear that this isn't a precedent for other young editors, though. None of these actions are confined to a certain age group. This is a good block. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks, appreciate the support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the message at the top of the page I do not wish to notify the user that is causing me distress if it can be avoided, because I believe they do mean well and I respect them greatly. I am unable to face discussing the issue with them at the moment. In the past arguments have occured frequently between us, which I do not want to happen any more. That was one of the main reasons why I had a long break from wikipedia.

The reason why this editor has an issue with me is because I tend to misinterpret a few things and sometimes fit sources around what I believe makes sense, which I did intentionally in the past (I didn't fully understand the rules on wikipedia) and I was 14/15 years old at the time. I have later learned what wikipedia requires of an editor and have tried very hard to source things correctly and make up for past mistakes. The editor in question has recently made a ton of edits on the page I was working on, removing big chunks and putting it down to me misinterpreting sources and being deliberately devious. Instead of raising the issue at my talk page they have made a general notice about my editing on the talk page of the article in question, which is hurtful for me and embarassing, as it feels like the user's opinion of me is broadcasted by them at any talk page that our editing seems to converge. I feel hurt by this as this was never my intension to bend the truth. I do not believe most of the edits the editor made were correct and have undone one, but it appears it have reverted it again. I want to make it clear I do not want to get the editor in any trouble, but I feel that I will have to quit wikipedia again if this cannot be resolved and I know now cannot resolve it on my own, which is what I have tried to do in the past. I hope this is the right place to post. If I don't get a reply soon I will have to come back in the morning because its late and I've got exams to revise for. Thankyou to anyone who wishes to help.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance to drag the other user into this, but in my opinion, it is not really fair to the other editor involved to give advice without being able to see, specifically, what is going on. If you would like for some other eyes to have a look, I would recommend pointing us in the direction of what you're referring to. Kansan (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to carefully read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the steps in it. They have been carefully worked out and refined, and they have been extensively tested. They really do work. Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one he is talking about and here is the link to the page in question. [73] It, (along with all the Van Morrison articles) is one I previously edited before Kitchen roll ever became an editor. In that way, I have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the articles as much as possible and have often been amazed at his editing sourcing errors and his interpretations of what he reads and then puts into the article as verifiable. I have never written about him on a talk page except on articles I edited long before he did - (Van Morrison articles) And where it really mattered. As in His Band and the Street Choir going for FA and it was a complete fairy tale after his editing. And I was the only one who had the books he referred to . It was going to pass as a FA article in that condition if I didn't challenge him. So I definitely am not trolling Just trying to maintain the articles I have worked hard on. I don't revert or correct him unless I verify that he is not interpreting or sourcing correctly. Agadant (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on the edit linked to above. Do you consider it to be a discussion about specific improvements to the article, or do you think it was more of a criticism of another editor? Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like criticism but I also thought after his admitted many sourcing errors and fabrications after 3 years, he would realize that he still has a problem with comprehending what he reads. I have been patient in the past, I have gone over every edit with him that I have challenged and told him why and the discussions would go on and on. Sometimes he would admit something like. "Oh, I read that 3 times and still didn't get it" or "I don't see well and I never read" or just endless arguing and accusations that I am persecuting him or not allowing him to edit. Or that I don't respect him because he is a teenager. He put his sex and age on his userpage so I am not revealing anything unknown. He once advised another editor to cheat on referencing and hide what he wanted to put in the article in front of something already referenced. And Kitchen roll still does this. Even though I scolded him about it. I have never reported him and he is the one who is wrongly sourcing and interpreting and I am trying to keep the articles as reliably sourced as I can for Wikipedia's sake and for the readers. It is nothing personal as it is a very large amount of arguing and trouble for me. And I have limited time. I used to not get any editing done for arguing with him over something that he was wrong about and he later admitted or I could verify. What am I supposed to do? I'm at my wit's end with this and don't have time to handle it by futile and contentious discussions with him. He has threatened to report me before for reverting him but his editing was in the wrong! Agadant (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So basically, it seems like he can continue to maintain his bad editing habits and I either have to spend hours checking his editing on articles that I have an interest in or let them be riddled with bad sourcing, interpretations and opinions. I have spent most of the day and evening checking his work, correcting the errors I found and now more hours defending myself and yet all I did was what every editor that cares at all about Wikipedia should do. While he has gone off somewhere and can come back tomorrow and do more of his questionable editing and report me if I change or revert him. That's how it looks to me now but I am tired. Agadant (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. These are the edits I have made to the article since my return to wikipedia [74] and these were the edits Agadant has made to the article [75]. I think there is one instance where we have edited in the same area, which is the lead with the "celtic influences" reference. I wrote a long reply but thought better of it. I'm sorry if I caused you any annoyance, which I know I have done, but it was never intentional. I will quit wikipedia providing you wipe these messages about me from the talk pages. This has caused me to waste a lot of time and I can't stand arguing with people. None of the corrections you made to the BV page I had made since I returned. I vowed to myself that this time I would be much more careful, but I suppose it doesn't matter now. Thanks for your time anyway; it was probably a mistake I returned.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What talk pages? Other than BV? And the objection was to the sentence you wrote in April 2011 [76] that BV was the "FIRST" album Morrison released that contained celtic influences. That is much different than saying it had celtic influences. I don't know why you can't denote the difference between the two? As far as some of the other material, it probably was written in when you were editing a few months ago and had put up an "Under Construction" tag.[77] That does seem to denote ownnership at the time, esp. as I am the only frequent editor who edits on the VM articles. And I didn't oversee what you were doing at the time. I noticed your recent edits because I had a new reference I wanted to use material from in the article. (The Guardian one) So I took time and read through it and checked the references against the edits you made since I had last read it. Once again you play the 'blame game' inferring that I don't want you to edit and that is why I make objections and corrections and am not pleased with your editing some of the time. To run you off, huh? You make some edits elsewhere too... for instance you used to work some on Bob Dylan's articles. How did that go? I think you upset the frequent editors there by putting 'notability' tags on 20 or 30 of their song articles? You really need to stop blaming others when you cause problems using passive-aggressive behaviour on Wikipedia. Agadant (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts from the Peanut Gallery. Kitchen Roll, it looks like you do an unusually large amount of edits with an unusually small amount of discussion for someone who is apparently still learning how Wikipedia works. You must realize that this has an impact on other editors. My advice would be to slow down, and take some extra time to learn the key policies and guidelines more thoroughly. Maybe start by doing do just a few edits per day, and discuss them first on the talk page if you're not sure about them. Maybe read wp:verifiability and wp:nor carefully a few times. Take it easy, stick around and enjoy it. And Agadant, it looks like you let your exasperation turn into some pretty nasty wording towards Kitchen Roll, basically talking nasty about them in general rather than addressing specific behaviors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with the above. I would very much like to see both parties say that they have taken the above advice to heart, shake hands and put aside hard feelings from the past, and to agree to start working together, discussing proposed changes on the article talk pages in a civil manner. Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful advice and for your time, North8000. I defo can be nicer. Agadant (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll read wp:verifiability and wp:nor. I also need to work out how to word the sources in my editing without losing the meaning, so I think I'll try some copyediting on some non Van Morrison related articles. Thanks for being understanding Agadant.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And thank you also Guy Macon for your time and your effort to help resolve this. I do feel confident that it will be better now and I will be as congenial and understanding as I possibly can.and will wait it out if I feel frustrated and not make comments until in a better frame of mind. Kitchen roll, I am glad to see that you decided to stay as an editor. You have a lot of skills as an editor and I have always recgnized your strong points as well as your weak ones. I'm sure we can work together more harmoniously in the future. Agadant (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I always say, most people want to improve Wikipedia instead of getting into conflicts, and can work together if they just sit down and talk things out.

Admins, I believe this one can be marked as being resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Belchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician, Belchman persists that one user is a an anti-Spanish "POV pusher" and that I am a "complete ignorant" [78] [79] [80]. These labels seem designed to provide an excuse to discount those who disagree with his proposed changes [81]. I've asked him to be more civil [82], and Jaume87, the accused "POV pusher," has asked him to retract the accusation [83] but Belchman persists. Looking at his talk page, it seems that Belchman has had some issue with civility in the past. Perhaps he needs another reminder. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user:aeusoes1, he has insulted us plus he is trying to impose us his own ideas without reaching a consensus. Could an administrator intervene and warn him? Thanks. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On 3 July 2009 Codecrimson was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account for edits at Rocky Point, New York and at the Korn album Untouchables (album), which he said was his favorite band.

On 8 October 2009 Leggymcgoo was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, also for edits at Rocky Point, New York and in connection with Korn; one of the edits at the Rocky point page reads, "Rocky Point is the homtown, and birthplace of the group Code Crimson, that helps the world defend itself agaist the crimson mennace".

On 3 June 2010 Leggymcgee2, an account created 30 May 2010, was blocked indefinitely for death threats, after having edited at Rocky Point, New York and numerous Special:Contributions/Leggymcgee2 Korn-related articles. Two of his edits at the Rocky Point article were, first, "Rocky Point is also the home town of the American Rock band Soggy Toast." and second, "Rocky Point is home to the Code Crimson organization, which helps people when Ben Crimson attacks".

On 16 June 2010 Branden mellay makes his first-ever edit, which was to join WikiProject Korn. He limits himself primarily to music articles, Special:Contributions/Branden_mellay especially those involving Korn, until 30 August 2010 when he adds (diff1 diff2) "Rocky Point is also home to the Code Crimson oraganizations, that provides help during Ben Crimson attacks." and "Rocky Point is also home to american rock band Soggy Toast" to the Rocky Point article. Since that time, he has reintroduced that material, primarily the Soggy Toast entry, into the article approximately ten times despite the efforts of several other editors, notably DurinsBane87 to prevent it. He has also enhanced at least one other edit to that article by an IP editor which can reasonably be construed to be vandalism (and whose only other edit was clearly vandalism). The most recent addition of the material in question to the Rocky Point article was today.

Due to the similarity in subject matter editing, there are clear signs here of repeated block evasion and vandalism. (There has also been slow-motion edit warring at, at least, Rocky Point and at Alive (Korn song).) In light of the past threats, it would appear that a checkuser check would be appropriate. If block evasion is proven then an IP block may be in order. (I have additional social evidence to link Leggymcgoo, Leggymcgee2, and Branden mellay together, but cannot state it here as it would tend to out the real identity of the suspected evader.)

(Though DurinsBane87 has also engaged in the slow motion edit war at the Rocky Point article let me say that to his credit that he has recently made an appeal to dispute resolution, by first making a request for a Third Opinion — which is how I became involved — followed by making a RFC. DurinsBane has nothing in his block log and his talk page only reveals a couple of fairly minor issues. Unless something else is found, I'd recommend that he not be sanctioned, at least not more than a mere warning, which I have basically already given.)

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• After I reblocked Leggymcgee2 to revoke talk page access and suggested a clean start (WP:AGF I suppose), I actually received a message from Branden mellay at my talk page on Commons (see [84]), likely because that account got caught in the autoblock here. To summarize: first it was a son who committed the vandalism, and we now apparently have a spouse involved... WP:BROTHER much? I have no doubts these are all the same individual. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  Non-Admin Observation I observe the "stylistic" way that this "user" writes on all the accounts, the extremely graphic event that caused Leggymcgee2 to be indeffed, the "parent's request" to be unblocked, and the subsequent inconsistencies between the claims (Branden being 20 and having a 14 year old son) I'm inclined to advocate for more strict sanctions being applied to this user. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion: This notice was made to bring the current actions of Branden mellay to administrator attention. As of this edit, that issue has not been addressed, though the foregoing discussion might seem to imply otherwise. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This really belongs at WP:SPI, but since I'm here...

• It is quite clear this is the same user who's been indef blocked three times previously.
• Those blocks, especially the last one, were for really, really, unacceptable behavior.
• He is still being disruptive at Rocky Point, New York. Not as disruptive as more death threats, but disruptive.
• I don't know enough about music to know if his Korn and other music-related edits are helpful or not. But in the end, it doesn't matter whether they are useful or not; this editor has proven to be too big a time sink for the last few years.

I'm going to block him indefinitely as soon as I'm done here. If someone feels it's worth keeping track of in a more organized fashion, and knows their way around SPI better than I do, and wants to copy all this to there, I'm fine with it, and thank them for cleaning up after a slacker admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am editing on a Droid X smartphone or would do this myself. An IP editor added unsourced charges of ties between the Sierra Club, an article I watch, and the Communist Party USA. I fixed up the first and some vulgar vandalism to the second. I don't have the ability to remove all the vandalism due to Andoid limitations, and would appreciate a cleanup and formal warning to the IP editor. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User warned. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Alan. Cullen328 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to take care of something fairly easy so an admin can deal with the hard stuff. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Oregon-based IP committed a gross BLP violation which was missed and which I reverted. Don't know if it calls for oversight or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, N5iln beat me to it. Seems like the IP ought to be put out to pasture for awhile, except he hasn't done anything since the last warning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) has nominated just about every fraternity Fraternities and sororities beginning with the letter Alpha for Prod or AFD. These drive-by twinkle nominations, including obviously notable fraternities, contained zero actual rationale--they all said simply "non notable organization." I attempted to discuss this with the user, who responded by opening a second afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination)) of an article I wrote, even while the first AFD was pending (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma). Other users [85][86] attempted to discuss this with the user. Instead, the user posted aggressive comments on his talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

These mass AfD nominations are clearly inappropriate, but Wuhwuzdat has not done so again since you asked them to stop. If it starts up again, a block to prevent further disruption seems warranted. — Satori Son 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The following indiscriminate AFDs were filed after my request: [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94], not to mention the retalitatory 2nd AFD of my article, while the first was still pending.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are are absolutely correct. My apologies. (I mistakenly used the time of his snarky "request denied" response.) — Satori Son 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem!--GrapedApe (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they inappropriate enough to warrant a speedy keep close, where no other user advocates deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are inappropriate, then they should be withdrawn -- otherwise, the the disruption is ongoing.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a larger discussion about the conduct of this user as a whole. They has been the subject of numerous previous discussions over bitey conduct and misuse of the deletion protocol. They've also been fairly unwilling to listen to other editors about their conduct. It saddens me that I see Wuhwuzdat here at AN/I on a what now feels like a monthly basis. elektrikSHOOS 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat. — Satori Son 04:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not just ban him from listing AFDs? In the process of closing them recently, I've noticed a rather large number Wuhwuzdat nominated that were unanimous keeps but for his nom. There is the odd valid deletion result from him, but as a whole his track record seems pretty poor. The AFDs seem indiscriminate and bot-like, such as his spate of "non notable former model" deletion noms (not that being a "former" rather than current anything is relevant to notability), some of which were easily verifiable as current models (e.g., here and here). Then I saw the mass fraternity AFDs, which really seem beyond the pale... Why waste other people's time responding to these and closing them when he apparently hasn't exerted even minimal effort or thought in listing them, clearly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE (such as here, where multiple sources were found by the first commenter within two hours of his AFD posting]]) or bothered to write more than a generic WP:VAGUEWAVE for a deletion rationale? And then from what I've seen, he doesn't even bother to come back and participate further to explain or defend his nom. Force him to actually participate in AFDs as a commenter so perhaps he might learn how it's supposed to work. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The AfD/PROD spree might have stopped for now, but that's the usual style - a rapid-fire mass tagging of a whole load of related articles, then ease off for a while. So there is usually no immediately ongoing action to prevent, but the next spree is as sure as eggs is eggs. The last spree was to tag whole load of articles about "glamour" models as non-notable, clearly without doing any checking first. A handful are likely to be deleted, but the majority will be kept as notability is not hard to show. I think we need a way to prevent the next drive-by spree, and the one after that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another issue, though a minor one, is that every single one of these AFDs is uncategorized. Have a look at Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category), which normally has maybe half a dozen AFDs - we're sitting at over 100. If there's no category entered, you get Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted) - but here, he specifically selected "Nominator unsure". This also goes for the models he listed last week (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sheriff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Jane, for example). Protip - they're all fraternities and sororities, so they're all organizations, and chances are models are going to fall under Biography. The categories really don't matter to many, nor is this itself a reason to topic ban this editor from AFDs - except that this example shows the level of care and forethought that went into these nominations (none at all). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that for almost every AfD nomination, there are 2 keeps. One is a snarky "If you half-assed a nomination, I can half-ass a keep statement". The second is a "I agree with the snarky keep". I suggest that GrapedApe and all participants on the AfDs reconsider assuming good faith and evaluating each nomination on it's merits. Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I did start out AGF with the nominations. I also posted them to the WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities list of active AfDs so the project participants would be aware of them. As I was doing that, I noticed that in addition to the minor/small fraternities that were being nominated (some of which aren't notable, and one of which I !voted to delete), there were some major organizations that were nominated, particularly Acacia Fraternity, Alpha Xi Delta, Alpha Tau Omega, and Chi Omega. Chi O was the last straw for me: that told me that no consideration of the article was being given, but it was a blind/pattern-based nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been some articles that are questionable on their validity of being WP articles as such I've reviewed several and expressed thoughts on them... Working on the rest of the list. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Within the past week, this user has also gone on a mass PROD spree for numerous bands, including one which clearly met WP:BAND and one which had previously been PRODed. This sort of massive-scale, drive-by tagging without any sort of regard for WP:BEFORE is detrimental to the project. I'd recommend temporary suspension of Twinkle privileges, as that's what all of the recent taggings have been done with, to help this user understand that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. elektrikSHOOS 04:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just take it one step further, set a precedent and block per repeated violations of WP:BEFORE? –MuZemike 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see disruption here. The first AfD I picked out at random from the list he nominated was clearly justified. In the second case I looked at the organization might be slightly more notable, but the article had zero independent sourcing and lacked crucial information to allow even assessing notability. As long as there are cases like this among his nominations, I say it's worth looking at them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone is being indiscriminate, then yes, by definition there are going to be some positive results. I don't think you mean to say that, for example, if he listed 50 AFDs, out of which two were closed as delete and the rest as keep, then it's a good use of everyone's time? Presumably we have other editors who are capable of identifying and listing those two deletion candidates without also flinging the other 48 at the community to deal with. I don't know what his ratio of keep-to-deletes is; perhaps we should do a formal count. But the absolute numbers of improper nominations (mass listings with only vague wave rationales and clear failures to follow WP:BEFORE) should also be a concern. postdlf (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, because then you'd have every AfD gadfly on Wikipedia screaming for blocks for anyone taking articles there in future based on precedent? WWD was apparently asked to stop and then stopped. That suggests a block is inappropriate. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be opposed to removal of Twinkle here, which genuinely would be a preventative measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Wuhwuzdat had already been placed on the official Twinkle blacklist as a result of a prior incident involving his use of Twinkle. As of right now, he's still listed on said blacklist. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He's redefining the array value here (see here) without himself blacklisted, might undo that, or just block him for it... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted his local morebits copy (a WP:IAR speedy delete!) as it was used to avoid the Twinkle blacklisting. Feel free to restore this if there is consensus that this was an incorrect speedy deletion of course... Fram (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, that hacked twinkle has to be treated as an unauthorized bot used by an editor under bot restrictions (twinkle blacklist). Block and keep blocked until person agrees to stop the nonsense. Fram's deletion was perfect, I wouldn't have thought of doing it that way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (Edited: if operation stopped some time ago then I guess blocking is not preventive). A pretty severe talkpage trouting is warranted though, IMO. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Before we get to carrying out the sentence, can we at least get a statement from the accused? If Wuhwuzdat was blocked from using twinkle previously, deliberately violated the block by hacking around the block, and continued to use twinkle in a manner not supported by the community, then it is time to consider alternative preventative measures. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears the previous Twinkle abuse did not result in a block, only placement on the Twinkle blacklist (which he deliberately violated). Additional preventative measures might still be warranted, however (whether or not he opts to respond here). — Satori Son 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the message he got when he was blacklisted: "My apologies, but your continued refusal to listen to other editors' concerns (example noted above) forces me to take this action."^{[emphasis added]} The symptom may be that he's sending articles to AfD inappropriately, but is the root cause that he still won't listen to other editors' concerns and edits in violation of policy? In that light, skirting the Twinkle blacklist is a gross example of refusing to listen (by hacking his way back to Twinkle access). I'm not sure he needs to be blocked over this incident, but it needs to be made clear that the behaviour isn't acceptable and further incidents won't be tolerated—and likely would result in a block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that as best as I can estimate, he has made tens of thousands of Twinkle edits since being banned from using it. :(Naraht (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Huh. I'd like to know what brought this on, myself. HalfShadow 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) - I just want to add that in my opinion all these ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK nominations were an exercise in disruption by this self-described "Semi-Retired" editor and there should be procedural keeps meted right down the line at AfD. There are clearly a few of the nominations which were inadvertently revealed to be probable failures of notability guidelines. I presume, probably quite accurately, that they will be renominated shortly. Further, at every Request for Adminship vote we hear the candidates reciting by rote that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Where has been the block on this editor as he drove his car down the sidewalk squishing pedestrians with his automated and obviously bad faith nominations for deletion? Just wondering... Carrite (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) I agree with Carrite to the extent that WuhWuzDat's role in the AfD process has been quite disruptive, in my opinion. I participate in many AfD debates, and try to do so thoughtfully and based on policy. My recommendations to "delete" almost exactly equal my recommendations to "keep". Sometimes, I expand and reference articles I discover there, as I did with Scott Backes, nominated for deletion by WuhWuzDat in March. My attempts to reach out to this editor to inform him that the article had been referenced, and request to reconsider the deletion nomination were met with a rude dismissal: [95]. This user's clear failure to observe WP:BEFORE and disregard for the letter and the spirit of deletion policy has been an enormous time drain on regular, thoughtful participants in the AfD process for a very long time. I am also convinced that this editor has alienated and frightened away many new editors who potentially could have been valuable contributors to this encyclopedia. I am also shocked that this user has hacked past Twinkle restrictions. I respectfully request that our administrators take appropriate action to prevent future disruption. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I received a confidential e-mail from somebody concerned that User:Wuhwuzdat may be related to User:John254, User:Erik9, User:Mhiji based on a similar interest in tools and similarly diverse editing pattern ([96]). I don't know much about any of these contributors (aside from what I've read here) and am not really much involved in WP:SPI, but wanted to note the concern here in case it can be refuted or substantiated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalk paints a very interesting portrait. Can we get some outside input on this? elektrikSHOOS 20:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got hundreds of pages in common with each of those accounts (OMG we've all edited Tinchy Stryder!!!1) as well. You would think that if WWD was a seasoned socker he'd just have switched accounts to get around his Twinkle ban rather than hacking around it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

True, true. Looking at this tool more in-depth, it appears that half of Wikipedia might be socks of WWD in some form or another. I don't personally care enough to open a case at WP:SPI, but if anyone else wants to I won't object. elektrikSHOOS 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly from looking at his contributions I don't see any support for socks claim, he likes collecting titles as in his primary user page and he has done work to ensure keeping high edit counts, it is in my mind, not likely that he would risk getting his user banned by using a sock. somehow I don't see him fitting the category.  Rmzadeh  ►  20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Wikichecker, the profile of the time of day of WWD's edits is not at all the same as that of John254 and his socks. Fences&Windows 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Thelifepursuit — disruptive editing to article So Beautiful or So What with unsourced or improperly cited material (history), and personal attack. Given warnings, explanation of guidelines, ignored. Dan56 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone block 75.47.137.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) No one at AIV care about it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I really wish I had people to help police the List of Mad episodes article. I am at odds with editors and (not until May at least) IPs who are insisting on adding unsourced information regarding the season information. I've tried talking to them and adding hidden text, but they deliberately ignore me and my advice, "produce reliable sources to verafy claims". Sarujo (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am bringing into the attention of the edits by User:Arilang1234. This particular editor was brought here previously for uploading images that violate copyright [100], and was promised not to do it again. However, the problem still remains. Here is a list of his images:

[101]

Note that the book cover of Zhou Enlai and Madam Chang are lifted from Amazon, the cover for Scarlet Memorial is lifted from Mightyape, and all have their watermarks. His other images are also directly lifted from publisher's websites, and didn't seem to grant a fair use licence.

He also uploaded a large number of videos from Youtube to Wikipedia, sourced to the CIA. [102][103] I don't know Wikipedia's policies on uploading videos, but I don't think the usage of them as sources on the Great Leap Forward article follows NPOV policies. And looking at [104], it seems that Arilang1234 is the only user that has uploaded such files.60.242.159.224 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of notifying Arilang1234 of this thread. In the future please notify involved parties when you report them here. As to the substance, you do not grant a "fair use license", by definition, fair use is unlicensed use of a work that is permitted by law. However some of those images and the uses look very iffy from a fair use standpoint. Monty₈₄₅ 17:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• The CIA video is likely to be public domain as it will be covered by {{PD-USGov-CIA}}; the video of China: The Roots of Madness is expressly creative commons, as indicated by the source links given. As for the book covers, I believe there is strong precedents for their use in the article where the book is the main subject, for illustration or critique purposes --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• All the images as far as I can see are tagged as fair use, so the lack of a license is not an issue. Some of them may need further scrutiny whether they meet WP:NFC (one had become orphaned; another I just proposed for deletion for failing NFCC#8), but in general these aren't copyvio deletion issues. As somebody rightly said above, the book covers will generally be acceptable in articles where those books are a primary object of discussion, but maybe not elsewhere, so a check of what they are actually used for may be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have now replaced the book cover images with non-watermarked versions. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has remained pretty much static since I started posting to the talk page 10 months ago. During that time, I and other editors have raised good faith issues regarding content and accuracy: [105] [106] [107] In the last example given you can see the limit the editors exhibiting WP:OWN issues with this page, specifically User:O Fenian and User:Nick Cooper, have been willing to engage myself and others in any meaningful discussion about problems with the article.

I did try to engage in dialogue and propose wordings that I though would be accurate and acceptable to all [108] [109], but again, nothing. However the tone of comments on the talk page, as well as its edit history, made me hesitant to get more involved. After 10 months though, after my extended whine here [110] (which I regret [111]), I quickly put up a lede rewrite [112] and explanations of my reasonings on the talk page; [113] the lede as it is currently is so awful that I thought being WP:BOLD was justified.

I don't have a problem with User:Nick Cooper reverting, but his revert I feel exhibited bad-faith with his reasoning [114] that all the "inappropriate American-English spellings, as well as poor and unacceptable sentence structures (e.g. starting one with "11" as a numeral, rather than the word)" was "too much to unpick individually so I am reverting it all". That seemed like a gross exaggeration to me, as in reality it was one 's' instead of one 'c', and one number "11" instead of the word "Eleven". (Nick denies this, but continues to keep his reasoning secret from me [115]). The only other issue Nick raised was a content one about whether to include the people hit by armoured cars in the lede; I had already mentioned my reasoning for not included them, and expanded upon that in great detail later. After using it as an excuse to revert, User:Nick Cooper has shown no interest in discussing it any further however.

User:O Fenian bad faith can best be illustrated by this edit where he makes up his own definition of what constitutes "armed", and then using his homemade definition to then dismiss Saville's findings that Gerald Donaghy was carrying nail bombs was "largely irrelevant". I can't think of an editor more different than me than User:O Fenian, who's overwhelming majority of edits are reverts. During the past year I have made two reverts, both of which were of myself. I came here to write.

With 115 watchers on the page you'd think there would have been some progress on the article over the past year. But because of the refusal by User:O Fenian and User:Nick Cooper, as well as others, to consider any changes has kept it completely static (and a mess). As I said to them, consensus isn't just avoiding any meaningful discussion to prevent a quorum. And they are able to take turns once a day reverting, as to avoid violating the restrictions all Troubles articles are under. I do feel User:Mo ainm's revert today was simply gaming the system, as this user has not contributed at all to the article the past year, but is more than willing to jump in and help out with the tag team reverting.

The only articles I'm interesting in working on are this one and TWA 800. If User:O Fenian and User:Nick Cooper are too busy patrolling all the articles related to The Troubles to engage in anything constructive here, perhaps they should remove Bloody Sunday (1972) from their watchlist. I'd also like User:Mo ainm, and anyone else on the watchlist of this article to engage in good faith dialogue rather than just exercise their right to revert once a day. I've parsed my proposed edits now down to 3 sentences at a time, and proveded more than enough justification, however now it seems quite obvious that the tendentious editing of all the editors who have very strong POV on the subject means I'll have no chance to contribute. Cheers!, well actually, *sadderz* LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite amusing that someone who is complaining about the lack of good faith said "I believe the most involved editors on this page have strong pro-Republican views (would you disagree?), but the bottom line is those views have slanted the content of the article so that it is not, not even close, to being NPOV" in their first post to the talk page in months, an accusation without merit or any supporting evidence.

Other than that, there is not much going on here. Discussion is ongoing, when time is permitting. O Fenian (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have this page on my watchlist and would be happy to lend a hand if necessary. --John (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if that was a request for comment(?), but yes, if you would like to get involved I'd be extremely happy to work with you and the other editors to achieve some sort of consensus. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)